Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

M40 Extension (Oxford-Birmingham)

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish orders for the extension of the M40 motorway from Oxford to Birmingham.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Later this year.

Mr. Cadbury: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this road forms a vital part of the export route from the industrial Midlands to the South Coast and that because of the present inadequate road system many Midlands companies are paying unnecessarily high transport costs? Will he ensure that the M40 is extended to Birmingham as soon as possible?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that present routes between the West Midlands and Southampton are inadequate, and the new road could also provide some relief for the M1 which is congested. I assure my hon. Friend that we are pressing on with the road as quickly as possible. We will publish the draft orders later this year and the scheme is progressing with real seriousness.

Mr. Soley: Will the Under-Secretary bear it in mind that, although many of us have no objection to the proposed link, where the road goes through my constituency it is not of motorway standard, that it already poses many safety problems in Hammersmith and the neighbouring constituency of Ealing, Acton and massive problems of pollution by noise and vibration for those who live alongside the road? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that any increase of traffic will be safely conducted through that non-motorway section and, above all, will his Department give some help to those who live beside the non-motorway section?

Mr. Clarke: I realise that there are problems where the A40 goes into London. We have a steady programme of improvements planned for the road, and we hope to have them completed by the time the M40 is opened. I appreciate the problem and we will do our best to help.

Seat Belts

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to review the possibility of making compulsory by law the wearing of seat belts by occupants of the passenger seat of private motor cars.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I have no plans to extend the compulsory wearing of seat belts beyond the proposals relating to children contained in the Transport Bill.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I make an almost invariable voluntary practice of wearing a seat belt, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that he has behind him a considerable number of hon. Friends who wish him well personally but who are implacably opposed to the further extension of compulsion in this area and will seek to oppose it in any way they can?

Mr. Fowler: I understand that feeling. It has always been the case, and as far as the Government are concerned it always will be, that compulsion is a matter for a free vote in the House. My advice, as Secretary of State for Transport, is that people should wear seat belts. They save lives and injuries, but my personal view on compulsion is the same as that of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the article in The Sunday Times at the weekend, which drew attention to the dangers facing young children, following tests with seat belts, may we expect a further statement from the Secretary of State?

Mr. Fowler: I saw the article in The Sunday Times and we have told the paper that we will examine the evidence that it set out. There are a number of issues that The Sunday Times has not considered, particularly the findings of the Child Accident Prevention Committee, but we all want the same thing—safety for children. I will examine the results of the investigations of The Sunday Times and I will let the House know the result of that inquiry.

Mr. Higgins: If the House showed on a free vote that it favoured legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to introduce it?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, of course. I have always made it clear that we will abide by the will of Parliament. That remains the position. The issue that I wanted to emphasise is that there is a division across parties and hon. Members hold different views on the issue. It is sensible to arrange matters so that the issue is decided by a free vote.

Mr. Prescott: We all agree that this is a matter for a free vote and that the House has expressed its support for seat belts on a free vote. Bearing in mind what The Sunday Times said about an amendment, which the Secretary of State supported, for seat belts for children in front seats, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, after looking at the evidence, changing the Bill in another place so that it meets those circumstances and allowing a free vote when the Bill returns to this House?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about children and seat belts, the Government will be proposing a new clause on that issue in another place. We have made that clear and the amendment passed in this House is not the last word on that matter. As I said in my original answer, we have no plans to introduce a new clause or amendment to require the compulsory wearing of seat belts generally.

Private Capital

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the introduction of private capital into the public transport industry.

Mr. Fowler: The Transport Act 1980 provided powers to return the National Freight Co. Ltd. entirely to the private sector. The current Transport Bill provides for the introduction of private capital into both the British Transport Docks Board and British Rail's subsidiary businesses. There are therefore plans for the introduction of private capital or the introduction of new competition affecting all the transport industries for which I am responsible.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that of all the public sector industries for which the Government are responsible, British Rail has been the subject of the greatest constructive dialogue between management and the Government for the introduction of private capital, which can only benefit both the public and British Rail employees?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend's last remark. The introduction of private investment will benefit the subsidiary companies of British Rail, particularly companies such as British Transport Hotels. That is why the British Railways Board agrees to this way forward.

Mr. Stoddart: Can we assume that the right hon. Gentleman has no plans to hive off, or to introduce private capital into, British Rail workshops, which do extremely good work on an organised basis? Any plans to hive off or introduce private capital into that sector of British Rail would cause much trouble.

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman will know, no decision has been taken on the matter. The Transport Bill now going to the House of Lords gives the Government powers over the subsidiary companies of British Rail, and that would include British Rail Engineering. However, the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that there are no plans in this respect at present.

European Community (British Hauliers)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made since he took office in increasing the issue of permits and the size of quotas for British hauliers in the European Economic Community.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have made strong representations to the three countries, France, Italy and West Germany, which impose inadequate quotas. Since 1979, our quotas in those countries have been increased by 21 per cent., 50 per cent. and 112 per cent. respectively. In addition, European Community and ECMT multilateral quotas have been raised by 18 per cent., and 25 per cent. Despite this progress, we must continue to press for further increases.

Mr. Butcher: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his reply. Will he not agree that the British transport haulage industry is probably the most efficient in Western Europe, and that any further steps he can take to open up competition in the Western European market can only benefit the domestic haulage industry?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that the road haulage industry is still restricted within the Community by the national quotas imposed by some of our partners. Quotas are hardly conducive to the development of a free trading area and proper trade among Member countries.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have been in touch with him frequently about a road haulier in my constituency who is finding it difficult to get the necessary permits to travel to Italy, while many other road hauliers have permits in excess of their requirements? In view of the high level of unemployment in my constituency, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the matter seriously and see that something is done in this regard.

Mr. Clarke: I recall the case that the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) brought to my attention. There are many such cases. The unfortunate policies of Italy and Germany, in particular, leave the British Government with the difficult task of dividing the permits among British hauliers. I often hear rumours that some of the holders of permits have spare permits, but I have been unable to substantiate those rumours—or to lay my hands on the permits, if I may put it that way. We agree the rules with the trade association, and we try to be as fair as possible in distributing the permits.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is the Minister aware that many hauliers who have business on the Continent and would like to obtain permits cannot do so because all the existing permits for this year have been used up? Does he know of the case of Mr. Orgies in my constituency, who has 20 trips arranged for transport to France but cannot get the permits? There must be many spare permits that are not being used.

Mr. Clarke: The road haulage industry is going through a difficult time at present, and many hauliers are exasperated when they get business abroad which would help to overcome their problems but then cannot get the permits to make the necessary journeys. That is why my right hon. Friend and I take every opportunity to stress to our opposite numbers in Western Europe that a most unfair and discriminatory system has been imposed upon our hauliers. However, it is difficult to make any progress, and the German and Italian Governments, in particular, remain difficult.

British Railways (Corporate Plan)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made regarding the implementation of the British Railways corporate plan.

Mr. Fowler: The basic conclusion of the plan is that the board can achieve sufficient improvements in productivity to enable them to finance substantially more investment in future without needing external finance beyond current levels. I have always made clear my view that productivity improvements should be used to increase the board's internal resources available for investment, and I look forward to seeing signs of progress in this direction. Implementation of the plan is for the railways board.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does not the plan make it clear that 1981 is the year when decisions have to be


taken? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when we can expect a statement increasing the financial limits of British Rail, enabling it to carry out that precious investment?

Mr. Fowler: That matter is now being considered by the Government. I intend to make a statement to the House in that respect as soon as possible.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about improvements in productivity, because gains in that respect are essential to the successful implementation of the plan?

Mr. Fowler: The corporate plan sets out a programme of improvements in productivity. I hope that both sides of the House agree that the attainment of better productivity is crucial to the future of the railways. In freight, in particular, improvements can be made. I hope that these improvements are made, because about two-thirds of the railway costs are those of wages and salaries.

Bus Services (Subsidies)

Mr. Parris: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence is available that high subsidies for bus services attract people from cars to buses.

Mr. Fowler: All the available evidence is that high subsidies have little or no effect other than encouraging some extra trips by existing passengers. Reducing the fares by 10 per cent. achieves only some 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. extra travel.

Mr. Parris: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, although subsidies may be justified as a lifeline to threatened services, using subsidies to try to enforce travelling habits on the public is both extremely expensive and ultimately futile?

Mr. Fowler: There is much in what my hon. Friend says. South Yorkshire has taken this policy further than any other authority. If we applied the policy adopted by South Yorkshire to the other metropolitan counties and to the Greater London Council, the cost would be over £500 million a year. I hope that, in the coming elections, the public will understand that.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that if 2 per cent. of the car-driving population caught the bus, 180,000 fewer cars would be on the road, representing a saving of about £45 million? Is he aware that research in South Yorkshire shows that, with a high subsidy and low fares, 34 per cent. of people travel to work by bus, which is twice the national average and gives a good electoral bonus for the coming elections, as we shall find out next week?

Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."'

Mr. Fowler: It is interesting to hear the reaction of hon. Members opposite. The figures for South Yorkshire show that, at enormous cost and expense to the ratepayers both domestic and industrial, there has been only a 6 per cent. increase in passengers. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) now supports the policy adopted in South Yorkshire, why did the Labour Government oppose it throughout their term of office? Not only the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) but every Labour Minister of Transport opposed South Yorkshire to the death.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of retired people want to see the introduction of a fairer concessionary fare scheme throughout the country? What will he do to help local authorities over that hurdle?

Mr. Fowler: Local and central government are spending about £145 million a year on concessionary fares. It is reasonable that that should be a matter for local choice. That is where the decision should be taken.

Trunk Roads (Maintenance)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the amount to be spent on maintenance of trunk roads, other than motorways, in 1981–82; and how this figure compares with that for 1978–79 in real terms.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We plan to spend £48·2 million on the maintenance of non-motorway trunk roads during 1981–82, compared with £62·5 million during 1978–79. Both figures are at November 1980 prices.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not time the Government realised that cutbacks in road maintenance are shortsighted and highly detrimental to a good infrastructure, which in turn is the basis of a successful economy? Is it not time that the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to convince the monetarist zealots who surround him of these basic facts?

Mr. Clarke: We have not made cuts in maintenance. The hon. Gentleman has skilfully asked a selective question. If motorways are added to the trunk road maintenance figures, one will see that maintenance expenditure has been increased this year to its highest level ever. Total expenditure on trunk roads and motorways is 23 per cent. higher than in the year which the hon. Gentleman has selected for comparison.

Mr. Squire: Nevertheless, will my hon. and learned Friend welcome evidence from the Opposition of some commitment to better roads, which is sometimes overlain with other considerations? Will he also reaffirm that Greater London perhaps faces the greatest road system problem? Will he also reaffirm his commitment riot just to the M25 but to improvement of roads throughout London generally?

Mr. Clarke: The Select Committee certainly pointed out the inadequacy of the London road network, and that inadequacy is obvious to anyone who uses the roads in and around the metropolis. There is an extremely low proportion of trunk roads within London and most of those roads are the responsibility of the GLC and the boroughs. If Labour wins the GLC election, it is highly unlikely that there will be any money left out of transport expenditure to make any further improvements to the London road system.

British Railways (Fare Pricing Policy)

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail his fare pricing policy.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are always ready to talk to the chairman of the Railways Board on any matter, but the board has sole responsibility for fares.

Mr. Durant: I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says. In view of the present high cost of energy, does he


agree that this is the best opportunity for British Rail to attract passenger traffic? Bearing in mind the success of the recent BR old-age pensioner scheme, will he discuss with the chairman the possibilities of looking at off-peak commuter fares as well as overseas package holidays, which I believe could make a lot of money for British Rail?

Mr. Clarke: To be fair, British Rail has an adventurous fare policy. Its railcard policy covers many groups which might not otherwise have used the trains considerably. The board's recent scheme for the disabled is an example. I also agree with my hon. Friend that there is scope for encouraging off-peak travelling on commuter services, and I am sure that British Rail is interested in that.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister tell the chairman of British Rail that there can be no possible justification for refusing reduced fares under the big city saver scheme to a city such as Stoke-on-Trent with a population of 250,000, especially when the same scheme applies to towns such as Macclesfield with much smaller populations?

Mr. Clarke: I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairman, but British Railmust market its services, and it arranges its fares to bring onto the system passengers who might otherwise not travel with a view to maximising its revenue. If it were to give up revenue at the present time, it would only add to its financial problems. That would have an ill-effect on other rail passengers as well as the taxpayer.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that many of these concessionary schemes and railcards are deservedly popular? It is therefore unfortunate that in order to get at a minority British Rail should withdraw those facilities for the four days preceding the England-Scotland match from stations not only in Scotland but in England as well, including Berwick-upon-Tweed.

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that British Rail appreciates that many ordinary travellers and football supporters will be inconvenienced by those arrangements. However, I am sure the whole House agrees that British Rail and its employees have faced appalling problems in the past from the England-Scotland match, and something fairly drastic was required this year.

Ports of London and Liverpool (Severance Scheme)

Mr. Neale: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the severance scheme in the ports of London and Liverpool.

Mr. Fowler: By this morning, 957 registered dock workers in the port of London, and 1,132 in the port of Liverpool, had applied for severance under the special arrangements.

Mr. Neale: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the scheme comes to an end at the end of this month? Will he further confirm that, despite the public's concern about the amount of money involved, securing these severances is vital for the future of those ports?

Mr. Fowler: I confirm both those points. The scheme comes to an end tomorrow at midnight. There has been an encouraging response to this offer. Severances are crucial for the future of both ports.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State agree that this individualistic scheme has disregarded possible redundancy and efficiency schemes in other ports? Would it not be a good idea if the scheme was scrapped at the earliest possible opportunity so that normal industrial negotiations can proceed?

Mr. Fowler: The scheme comes to an end at midnight tomorrow. In that respect, I imagine that I have the support of the hon. Gentleman. We introduced a special scheme because of the special problems faced by both London and Liverpool. The response to the scheme has been encouraging, and is a good omen for the ports industry.

Mr. Moate: Do not the figures totally vindicate my right hon. Friend's decision to introduce this special scheme, and totally demolish the argument put forward by the Opposition, who voted against it? When my right hon Friend introduced the scheme, he emphasised the critical nature of the financial position in the ports of London and Liverpool. Can he now say whether there will be any early change in the position, particularly in the port of London with regard to the maintenance of the Royals?

Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend has said, the figures entirely vindicate our position as well as the legislation that we proposed. The next step will be for Ministers next month to consider the results of the scheme, along with other information.

Mr. Eastham: Was not the basis of the Opposition's objections the fact that the scheme gave preference to those two ports at a time when other ports faced the same difficulties and are justifiably asking the Government for some assistance?

Mr. Fowler: Obviously, I understand the request which has been made. However, no other ports are faced with the problem on the same scale as London and Liverpool, which is why we took this action in respect of those two ports.

Car Sharing

Mr. Marland: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the level of interest in car-sharing schemes.

Mr. Fowler: The level of public interest in car-sharing and car-pooling schemes is encouraging, although I believe that there is still considerable scope for increased use of such arrangements. I hope that more people will take advantage of the opportunities presented by the Transport Act 1980.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the amount of co-operation he has received from the insurance companies? I understand that in the past they have not been enthusiastic about the introduction of this scheme.

Mr. Fowler: The insurance companies have co-operated fully with the scheme. There is no problem in that regard. That message should also go out to those who wish to take part in car-pooling arrangements.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this scheme is largely a will-o'-the-wisp compared with the necessity for better publicly supported bus services throughout the country? If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are so enthusiastic about car-sharing, why do so many Tory Members arrive at the House sitting on their own in the corner of a big motor car and why do Ministers have one car apiece?

Mr. Fowler: I do not know. The hon. Gentleman will have to carry out a survey outside the entrance of the House of Commons to see whether there is any difference, but I suspect not. Most of the big cars that I have seen have been owned by Opposition Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the aim of car-sharing is sensible. It was something which the Labour Government supported.

Mr. Dormand: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be better to encourage people to buy bicycles? Does he recall telling the House on two occasions that the Green Paper on cycling would be published "soon"? However, "soon" is now 12 months ago. By the same token, does he recall promising to send me £1 to join the all-party friends of cycling group, and I have not yet received it?

Mr. Fowler: On the second point, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for my delay. It is very difficult to get money out of me. I am glad to tell him that I have the letter and the money for him in my room, as I understood only too well that he would be here today. With regard to the cycling policy document, I hope that that document will be published in the middle of next month.

Railway Services (London)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss services in the London area.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have received recently the board's plan for its London and South-East services that my right hon. Friend commissioned from the chairman. This sets out a number of policy options. We shall be discussing this plan with the chairman very soon, with a view to consulting more widely on it.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister also discuss with the chairman of British Rail the possibility of integrating British Rail commuter services in the London area with London Transport services? Does he agree that the examples of other cities in the world, particularly Paris, suggest that there are major benefits in such integration?

Mr. Clarke: There certainly is more scope for integration of fares and other policies between British Rail and London Transport. I know that the management of British Rail is interested in that and is trying to make progress with it. Many comparisons can be made with Paris, but they do not all lead in the same direction. In this case, I am sure that both British Rail and London Transport are anxious to make pregress in integrating their services.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: How much of the public service obligation grant is spent by British Rail on subsidies for its London services?

Mr. Clarke: The total PSO grant is more than £2 million a day—well over £600 million per year. It is

difficult to put a precise figure on the amounts spent in London and the South-East. My right hon. Friend recently suggested that there might be a separate board for London and the South-East under the main British Rail board. That would help us to identify a separate management unit and perhaps also to fix a definite sum of money within the PSO for commuter services.

Mr. Newens: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern among commuters who live around the London area about the shortcomings of the services that they use to get into London and back home again as a result of the financial difficulties of British Rail? Is he prepared to state clearly here and now that the Government will give British Rail all the financial support that it needs to provide a decent and adequate level of commuter services for those people?

Mr. Clarke: We have not the slightest doubt about the level of dissatisfaction felt by commuters about many of their services. But the reasons are many. The recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report that we commissioned identified a large number of areas in which action was needed and which I am glad to say British Rail is pursuing. We have not cut the investment level of British Rail. A high proportion of that investment goes into commuter services. We have increased the public service obligation by £23 million for next year. So even in these difficult times, the financial side is not the major cause of difficulty.

Bypasses

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the information available to him on which to judge the benefits that might be obtained from the construction of bypasses.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that we can all be encouraged by that answer. Is my hon. and learned Friend really satisfied that the Department is able to present to inquiries into proposed bypass schemes such as that impending for Brighton and Hove up-to-date evidence of the "before and after" effect on items such as noises and fumes?

Mr. Clarke: The most elaborate analysis is now carried out on the effects of proposed bypasses on fuel savings, time savings, accident costs and so on, as well as evidence about environmental effects and other matters. Our public inquiry system is now quite exhaustive and I am sure that the forthcoming Brighton bypass inquiry, which particularly affects my hon. Friend, will be a very full one, giving a complete picture on the matters to 'which he refers.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the Minister remind some of his Cabinet colleagues of the devastating effect that the proposed cuts in Government statistical services will have on the availability of this type of information?

Mr. Clarke: Absolutely no cut is being made in the availability of information on which we make the cost-benefit analysis of road schemes. As much of the work involves road surveys, I am glad to say that we are likely to automate our road survey information collection system in order to get efficient statistics at minimum administrative cost.

Mr. Squire: When my hon. and learned Friend, who I know has considered the matter at great length, considers the possible bypassing of Rainham village by the A13, will he take into account the exhaustive, as he says—and no doubt exhausting—statistics available to him and ensure that he comes to the right conclusion?

Mr. Clarke: I hope that my office will be contacting my hon. Friend again in the very near future so that we may have yet another of our talks about improvements to the A13 in the vicinity of Rainham. I am aware of his concern and I can tell him that we shall be making a decision soon.

Privatisation

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any further plans for privatisation and liberalisation of any organisation in the transport sector.

Mr. Fowler: So far as the introduction of private capital is concerned, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). So far as liberalisation is concerned, the Transport Act 1980 provided for the removal of many controls over passenger transport operations. I am encouraged by the response to this deregulation.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend and welcome his encouragement. Will he comment, however, on how successful the liberalisation of the traffic commissioners, which was part of the Transport Act 1980, has been and whether he has received any evidence that it is now working in terms of coach services?

Mr. Fowler: In terms of coach services particularly, the Act has led to an unprecedented increase in services. On many major inter-city routes, such as London-Birmingham, London-Manchester and London-Liverpool, there has been an increase in passengers of about 150 per cent. At the same time, prices have actually come down, in some cases by about half, as a result of competition and deregulation.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister recall that at the last Transport Question Time one of the advantages that he claimed for the liberalisation brought about by these measures was that rural services were improving and he cited South Humberside as an example? Is he aware that in the last two weeks the reduction or withdrawal of more than 14 rural services has been announced in that area, with no services at weekends, reduced services early in the morning and late at night, and with services having been replaced by a private operator operating about one a day?

Mr. Fowler: The information that I have about services that have been abandoned by the National Bus Company is that independents have taken over at lower fares in areas such as Exeter, Somerset, Devon, Dorset and Leicestershire. I cannot speak with authority on the hon. Gentleman's own area, but the signs are very encouraging and suggest that independents are now coming forward.

Mr. Marland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the difficulties that his Department is encountering with regard to further privatisation is that many of those employed in the various sectors within his responsibility have index-linked pensions and potential purchasers do not want to take on that responsibility?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that that has been a problem in our plans to bring private capital into these industries. Certainly in the National Freight Company, where that was one of the fears, I think that we have found ways to overcome that. Indeed, many of the staff are now very enthusiastic about their entry into the private sector.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Secretary of State forget the profit motive and provide a service for the people in the community? Will he admit that he and the Under-Secretary have tried private services in the county of Nottinghamshire, that those services have failed, and that there is nothing to replace them because of the Government's own policy?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that anyone quite follows the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. I shall explain to him what is actually being done. He seems to believe that all passenger transport is now run on a commercial basis. I must tell him that at present more than £½ billion per year is going into the bus services—that includes concessionary fares—from ratepayers and taxpayers.

Mr. Haynes: That is nothing.

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman says that that is nothing, that further confirms that the Labour Party is standing for more and higher rates in the forthcoming elections.

Railways (Electrification)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the desirability of extending the electrification of the British railway system.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Railways on the implementation of the electrification programme.

Mr. Fowler: I have received many representations in favour of extending the electrification of the British railway system. The chairman of British Rail and I have discussed the question of electrification on a number of occasions and I hope to be able to make a statement soon.

Mr. Marks: Has the Minister had any advice against the electrification proposals? Does he agree that electrification would be a valuable and timely investment, not only for the railways but for the country as a whole, as well as being a useful base for a growing export industry?

Mr. Fowler: The bulk of the representations that we have received are in favour of electrification, but there is a considerable amount of money involved and clearly it is reasonable that the Government should take some little time to look at all the various schemes that have been put forward.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is no time to waste, and that investment in early electrification of the railways is vital to the whole of British industry? Will he accept that electrification would be a massive boost to a wide range of British industry, and that it is the only way in which the Government can prevent unemployment from touching 3 million or even 3½million in the coming year?

Mr. Fowler: We want to make a decision as soon as possible. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says in that respect. The largest option before us would cost about £750 million. It is reasonable, therefore, that the Government should take some time to study the details, while at the same time remembering the hon. Gentleman's point about the considerable advantage that electrification would bring to much of the private sector industry supplying the equipment.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say how long the electrification of the railways would take? I understand that it would take a number of years. Therefore, the short-term effect on employment one way or another would not be very great.

Mr. Fowler: It would depend on the option that was chosen, but it would take between 15 and 20 years. We have estimated that it would involve about 2,000 new jobs.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Does the Minister understand that there is a great deal of wide support throughout each side of British industry for option 5 of the proposals that he has before him? Does he realise that, when both the TUC and the CBI are unanimous on proceeding with the maximum level of rail electrification, he should consider aligning himself with them?

Mr. Fowler: We recognise the considerable support of the CBI, the TUC and many other bodies that are in favour of electrification. We shall seek to make a decision on the question as soon as possible. We are thinking in terms of perhaps a couple of months. But it is reasonable that the Government should examine carefully all the forecasts that have been made concerning electrification before coming to a final decision. It is an important decision, not only for the railways but for industry generally.

Mr. Dover: Is the Secretary of State able to say whether it will be possible for private sector funding to be made available for the electrification work?

Mr. Fowler: British Rail is currently exploring the prospects with its financial advisers. Clearly, the Government would be willing to consider proposals in this respect.

Rush Hour Travel

Mr. Higgins: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made during the last year in reducing peaks in rush hour travel.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Only the local authorities and the public transport operators can say what improvements, if any, have been made in rush hour travel. We continue to encourage them to reduce all forms of congestion, and to make it easier for the motorist to contribute through car sharing.

Mr. Higgins: Will the Minister take a new initiative in this area—which has potentially great scope for saving both the energy and the capital investment that is needed in road and rail transport—especially in regard to the staggering of office hours in the public sector?

Mr. Clarke: The Government and the Civil Service now have well-established procedures for staggering hours, and we encourage employers to look at the possibilities wherever possible. Ultimately, individual employers have to decide whether their businesses can

adapt to flexible working hours, bearing in mind the costs imposed upon them and the need to keep some core time. Wherever it can be done it makes a valuable contribution to reducing congestion.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that the biggest single contribution that the Government have made to reducing rush hour travel has been by putting another million people on the dole? Is he aware that Greater Manchester transport attributes an 8 per cent. loss of revenue to this fact? Before the Prime Minister puts another million people on the dole, should not the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Transport Minister, warn her of those consequences?

Mr. Clarke: To attempt to attribute all of Greater Manchester's transport problems to unemployment would be somewhat misguided. The demand for passenger transport rises and falls from time to time, as demand for other goods and services in the economy varies. The best run services are those which adapt their capacity to demand in the quickest and most flexible way. Enormous costs are involved if one disregards demand in planning public transport, in big cities in particular.

Railways (Ivnvestment)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for increased investment in British Railways.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he intends to make to the British Railways document, "Rail Policy", a statement of their policies and potential for the 1980s.

Mr. Fowler: The investment ceiling currently stands at £325 million. I believe that this is adequate to meet the present needs of the railway businesses. As for the future, I am concentrating on the board's corporate plan for 1981 to 1985, which argues the case for increased investment based on improvements in productivity. I hope to make a statement about this in due course.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that there its a wide consensus, both inside this House and outside, that it is in the national interest that there should be, as speedily as possible, substantial investment in British Railways? Does he recall that, in answer to a question a few moments ago, he said that it would take him two months to make a statement? He said the same thing a month ago—that it would be two months. Will he now give us a specific date when he will make a forthright and imaginative statement on the investment programme of British Railways over the next decade?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give a specific date, nor do I know whether the hon. Gentleman would regard the statement as forthright and imaginative. We want to make a statement on the matter as soon as we conceivably can. We have already increased the external finance limit for British Rail this year to £920 million. We have also increased the PSO. Very considerable funds are going into British Rail, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to understand that.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what consideration he has given—I have put this question to him before—to the investment required by British Rail to support the building of the Channel tunnel.?


Does he agree that British Rail would be responsible for the facilities of London termini, or at least one terminal, and for other costs outside the portal to portal expense, which would fall to private contractors? Is he giving favourable consideration to British Rail's request for investment in this valuable project, which can be of vital importance to this country?

Mr. Fowler: There is a question later on the Order Paper about the Channel tunnel. Clearly, any project about the Channel tunnel must be concerned with the future of British Rail and be important for British Rail.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is a very strong suspicion in trade union circles and other places that one of the reasons, perhaps the major reason, why he will not announce this very important decision on investment—which is absolutely necessary in terms of jobs on the railways, and outside, bearing in mind the extra investment—is to do with the current wage negotiations? Will he promise that investment will not be hindered or based upon the settlement reached by the respective trade unions involved?

Mr. Fowler: The decision has not been held up because there are wage negotiations taking place. But a reasonable wage settlement—not just this year but in future years as well—must be a matter of the greatest importance for the Government and the railway industry. It is absolutely crucial for the railway industry to achieve maximum productivity and efficiency.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be right to have further investment in the railways on one condition—that the money does not go into the payment of inflated wages? Will he clear that point with the unions concerned?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's point is that the money should not go into the payment of inflated wages. I agree with him, and I am sure that the chairman of British Rail would also agree with him. The future of the railways is not just a matter for the Government; it is also a matter for the railway industry. I believe that a considerable number of Labour Members also understand that point. I hope that the message can go out from both sides.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that the case for extra investment in British Rail can stand on its own merits without screwing down the wages of workers in the industry? Will he accept that a consensus has grown up that this positive public investment will not suck in imports but will provide extra jobs in Britain? When will the expression of that consensus get through to the Cabinet?

Mr. Fowler: There is no question of screwing down pay. It is reasonable for the chairman of British Rail and I to say that important issues are at stake that will affect the future of British Rail. The future level of investment is one of them. However, productivity and the cost of labour are also important issues. This is a matter not only for Government but for the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Efficiency

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether she is satisfied with the advice available to enable her to identify ways of carrying out work more simply and efficiently.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I get a good deal of good advice from my officials and as a result of work in Departments on improving efficiency and economy, including work done with the help of Sir Derek Rayner.

Mr. Sainsbury: That is another encouraging answer. In an organisation such as the Civil Service, which is run by civil servants who have virtually no outside management experience, is it not valuable to have independent advice, particularly on using the latest methods and machinery for matters such as information storage, retrieval and transmission?

Mr. Hayhoe: I assure my hon. Friend that good advice is welcomed from all quarters. From time to time advice is sought from consultants and outside experts. We are conscious of the need for greater efficiency, which can be achieved by the increased use of new technology. Cost-effective applications of technology are always being sought. We have 500 microcomputers and 350 word processors within the Civil Service. The number of such machines is increasing.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Minister agree that efficiency is assisted by good industrial relations? If so, will he accept that by tearing up the pay agreement with the Civil Service the Government have not assisted efficiency?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next question.

Pay

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made towards the formulation of an agreed mechanism for settling pay in the Civil Service.

Mr. Marks: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when next she expects to meet representatives of the Civil Service unions to discuss comparability.

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in resolving the issues involved in the Civil Service dispute.

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and I met representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions on Thursday 23 April. We told the unions that the Government were prepared to set up an independent inquiry on future pay arrangements for the Civil Service. We also told them that the Government would enter pay negotiations in 1982 without a predetermined cash limit. On the level of pay increase for 1981, we reaffirmed that 7 per cent. was the most that could be afforded from within cash limits this year. We believe that these proposals offer a reasonable basis for an end to the present dispute, and we have made it clear to the union side that we are ready to continue with talks.

Mr. Hamilton: How can the Government expect to have the respect and the confidence of civil servants in view of the Government's breathtaking ineptitude and arrogance when dealing with them in the past few months? If the hon. Gentleman is so confident of his case why does he not publish the findings of the Pay Research Unit, or subject the disagreement to arbitration? Why should civil servants trust the Government any longer?

Mr. Hayhoe: I absolutely reject the hon. Gentleman's absurd charges. Is he not aware that 2 million workers in the public services have already settled this year for pay increases within the 6 per cent. cash limit?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the two hon. Members whose questions are being answered with question 45.

Mr. Marks: Does not the Minister realise that civil servants who dislike strikes support the industrial action because the Government broke an election promise that was made on 10 April 1979 by the Prime Minister? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he fails to meet the unions with concrete proposals and if he fails to put forward some offer—other than that of 7 per cent.—he and his colleagues will bear responsibility for the difficulties that will face the country?

Mr. Hayhoe: I repudiate the charge that we have broken our election pledge. Before the election we made the position clear. My right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Employment, made a formal statement on behalf of the Conservative Party about pay research. He welcomed the return of pay research, which the Labour Government had suspended for a considerable period. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
Naturally, we cannot give blanket approval in advance to the way the new Pay Research Unit is working, nor an unqualified promise to implement its future recommendations. No responsible Government or Opposition can make commitments of that kind.

Mr. Woolmer: Do the Government still stand by article 8 of the International Labour Organisation's convention No. 151, which they signed in March last year? By signing it, the Government committed themselves to adopting conciliation or arbitration procedures in the event of a dispute with public service workers. If the Government still stand by the convention, which they signed only 13 months ago, why do they not invoke the conciliation and arbitration procedures, in view of the increasingly serious dispute with their own workers?

Mr. Hayhoe: I looked at the terms of the ILO convention, particularly as Tony Christopher of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation said that the Government had broken their commitment to it. My judgment, and the advice that I have been given, is that we are not breaking the convention.

Mr. Higgins: Given my hon. Friend's reply, will he re-read the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report on public sector pay as a matter of urgency? It drew attention to the inflationary dangers of reaching a settlement one year in exchange for promises of something better the next year? Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the report and give no such undertaking?

Mr. Hayhoe: My colleagues and I are well aware of the comments made about a year ago by the Treasury and

Civil Service Select Committee. The proposals that we made to the Council of Civil Service Unions last week were completely in harmony with the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend is aware that the Shipley computer centre is one of the focal points of the eight-week dispute. Many of my constituents who are still at work would accept 7 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]—and are determined to ensure that the militants who are trying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]—to keep—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are right to tell the hon. Member to ask a question. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Mr. Fox: Is my hon. Friend aware that 450 union members are still out on strike? Is he further aware that only 20 of them turned up at a mass rally on the half-day national strike? Those involved are anxious to get back to work. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that his formula is acceptable to them?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am aware that many of the civil servants involved in the dispute are profoundly disturbed by the action being taken, particularly when it threatens the defence of the country or causes hardship to those who are innocent and who are not involved in the dispute. The proposals that we have made form a basis upon which talks can proceed. A reasonable settlement could be made. I hope that those talks will recommence as soon as possible.

Mr. Donald Stewart: How are pay settlements in other industries relevant to the civil servants' claim?

Mr. Hayhoe: There is an interrelationship with the settlements in the private sector and the other parts of the public sector to which I referred. It would be a betrayal of the 2 million within the public service who have already settled without industrial action in accordance with the 6 per cent. cash limits if we went back on our clearly announced policy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call one more hon. Member from either side.

Mr. Latham: Why have the Government proposed that next year's settlement should not be covered by cash limits?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have not said that. I repeat what I said. The Government are prepared to enter pay negotiations in 1982 without a predetermined cash limit. Cash limits as a weapon, or mechanism, for the Treasury will remain, but the charge against the Government this year is that there is no possibility of negotiation because of the predetermined cash limit.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister come clean, address himself to the question on the Order Paper, and state frankly that no progress has been made towards agreeing a mechanism to settle the civil servants' pay claims? Is the Minister aware that the nation has experienced eight weeks of industrial action by Britain's civil servants during which the Government have done little or nothing? The House has had two ministerial statements in which nothing was said and there has been one meeting with the unions in which nothing was


achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] In that situation, the Government stance seems like that of a latter-day Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn up.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have questions, even from the Front Bench.

Mr. Morris: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister direct his mind to some form of arbitration, because the British public's tolerance is not infinite?

Mr. Hayhoe: As my noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said, the 6 per cent. cash limit for this year's settlement must stand. I do not believe

that there is a demand by the nation as a whole that it should be breached. Our proposals in the first meeting with the unions, and last week, would form the basis for an honourable and fair resolution of the dispute. I hope that the Civil Service unions will seriously consider what we have said, return to talks with the Government and find an honourable way to solve the dispute.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of all those answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Question of Privilege

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make on a matter of privilege.
I received a written complaint from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), as is required under our new procedure, about the form of a memorandum widely distributed among hon. Members by the League Against Cruel Sports in connection with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. The cover of the memorandum is headed with the name of the Bill, the Westminster portcullis badge and the words "House of Commons". There are no words describing the derivation of the memorandum on the title page. Hon. Members could be misled by the format into believing that they had received a communication that has official standing.
I consider that what has been done constituted a serious abuse of the badge and of the name of the House of Commons. I have received a letter of apology from the League Against Cruel Sports, and I propose that no further action be taken in this case. However, under our new procedures, I am authorised to make a statement on a matter of privilege if I consider that it raises issues about which the House should be informed, even if I decide that the matter does not justify my giving precedence to a motion.
I wish to make it clear to people outside the House, as well as to hon. Members, that the unauthorised use of the badge and name of the House of Commons is a serious matter. Having given that public warning, I shall not be disposed to take as lenient a view of any future case brought to my notice.

Protection of Children in Care (Scotland)

Mr. Allen Adams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the placement of siblings under the age of twelve in the care of a local authority or voluntary care agency in Scotland in more than one residential establishment or more than one set of foster parents, except in the case of illness; and to make such separation permissible after the age of twelve only with the consent of the children concerned.
This is one in a series of Ten-Minute Bills that I have introduced about child care. Ten-Minute Bills are essentially statements of intent, putting down markers on a particular subject. Sometimes they work. Last year I put down a Ten-Minute Bill on the cost of adoption. It gained no legal force, but as a result, two major social work authorities are now paying for the cost of adoption and more people of a modest income can adopt children in certain parts of the country. Sometimes, when the House speaks with one voice, people listen. If my Bills do no more than that, they serve a useful purpose.
I do not wish to create the illusion that we are a nation of child batterers, that people are abandoning their children on street corners or that social work authorities are not doing their best to look after needy children. Most authorities are doing their best. However, in the latter part of the twentieth century, although child care has improved a great deal, it should have improved a great deal more.
Most people seem to believe, first, that the care of children is the domain of women and, secondly, that the problem of children in care is a small one. It is not small. Between 70,000 and 80,000 children are in care in Great Britain. They have been maltreated, abandoned or neglected to such a degree that the local authority has had to take them into care—which says a great deal about contemporary morality. I shall not speculate about 'the multifarious reasons—it would take 10 hours to examine them—but with that number of children in care we must realise that something is seriously wrong.
It is a great problem in terms not only of numbers but of cost. It costs the State a great deal of money to look after 70,000 to 80,000 children. Some social work authorities put the cost of taking care of one child at £90 to £100 a week. Even the beasts in the field look after their young until they are able to look after themselves. It is sad that the only animal which in some circumstances does not look after its young is the human being.
Children are taken into care for three basic reasons. The first is if they are orphaned. One hundred years ago, it was the main reason why children were taken into care, but today very few children are without both parents. Perhaps that compounds the problem. To see children in a children's home, knowing that they have mothers and fathers, or mothers or fathers, who frequently do not visit them makes the position more complex than it was 50 years ago when children were in homes because nobody looked after them. I find it compelling to see a child sitting in a home knowing that somebody should be looking after him.
A second major reason why children are in care is that they have been abandoned. There are substantial instances of people simply walking away from their children. When I was involved with a social work authority in Glasgow,


I found that the numbers of children abandoned during any weekend ran into dozens—and into hundreds during the whole year.
The third and most major reason why children are taken into care and why a place of safety order or an assumption of parental rights order is taken out by a local authority is the maltreatment of children who have been seriously battered, not fed or not clothed. It is a serious problem. I said that 70,000 to 80,000 children are in care, and I venture the guess that 50,000 of them have been maltreated—abused in one way or another. We all imagine what we would do if we caught up with the parents, but that would not solve the problem. The children are in care because they have been severely maltreated.
I remember a case that was reported in the newspapers in Scotland not long ago. A father put his child in the washing machine and turned it on. That degree of abuse is more common than one thinks. The public do not hear about such cases because when a social work committee decides to make an order for assumption of parental rights the press and the public are excluded and in 99 out of 100 cases the details never come to light. Perhaps the social work authorities should open the door so that some of the details could come to light. There is a duty to let the public know the facts as well as simply to protect the public.
No matter whether a child has been abandoned or maltreated, if a family is taken into care either because the parents do not care for them or cannot care for them—many are incapable of caring for their children, and often the family involves at least three or four children—at the end of the day the children have no one to turn to except each other. It is a horrendous practice to split a family of children and put one in one home and one in another, or two with one foster parent and three with another. That is often done simply on grounds of administrative expediency. I ask the House to say to local authorities that we do not approve of that practice. If it is within the realms of possibility, we want local authorities to keep families together. The Bill will provide for certain exceptions, but I ask the House to tell local authorities that we believe in the unity of the family.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Don Dixon, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Dick Douglas and Mr. Raymond Ellis.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN CARE (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Allen Adams accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the placement of siblings under the age of twelve in the care of a local authority or voluntary care agency in Scotland in more than one residential establishment or more than one set of foster parents, except in the case of illness; and to make such separation permissible after the age of twelve only with the consent of the children concerned: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 May and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

British Nationality Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 14th day of May 1981.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 14th May may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on the 15th May 1981.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resoulutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and New Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands


over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—


(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the British Nationality Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

We hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has recovered from his unfortunate, unhappy experience on Monday night.

As the House knows, the use of an allocation of time motion to expedite the progress of a Bill is rightly regarded as an extremely serious matter. That is especially so when the Bill concerned affects the status and rights of as many people as does the British Nationality Bill. Such a Bill clearly demands that a lot of time be made available for detailed discussion.

The Government have provided that time and propose to make a substantial further allocation. Obviously it had been our hope and reasonable expectation that the time allocated would prove sufficient for the full and proper debate of all the issues raised in the Bill without recourse to a timetable motion. However, it has become clear—unfortunately—that progress in considering the Bill is inadequate to ensure its passage on to the statute book this Session. It is, therefore, with great reluctance that I ask the House to agree to the motion.

At the outset of the debate I wish to make two things plain. First, had it been possible to secure the passage of the Bill without recourse to such a motion, the Government would infinitely have preferred it. Secondly, I make no criticism of the conduct and handling of the Bill by the Opposition. That is a matter for them.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Leader of the House said that he regretted the fact that it had not been possible to debate the issues in the time allocated. What was the time allocated? We asked that question many times but were never given any idea of what the Government had in mind in order to get the Bill out of Committee.

Mr. Pym: I intend to give the facts to the House. Many approaches and conversations have taken place. The problem and the issue is essentially one of time. In the Government's view, the point has been reached when the remaining available time—which is very


considerable—must be organised and allocated so that the passage of the Bill can be completed with all the issues debated.
The basic facts are as follows. The Standing Committee considering the Bill began its work on 10 February. After six morning sittings, amounting to 15 hours, the Committee had still not completed its consideration of clause 1. It therefore increased the number of sittings by moving to additional afternoon sittings of the normal two and a half hours duration. Consideration of clause 1 was not completed until halfway through the ninth sitting. The Committee took more than 21 hours to deal with that clause.
On 31 March the Committee had reached its twenty-third sitting but had got only as far as clause 6. Consequently, it extended its sittings and began to meet after 7 pm in addition to the other sittings. But even so, and even with its deliberations on two occasions having lasted until well into the morning, progress remained unduly slow if the Bill was to be reported to the House in time for the remaining stages. One would expect the Committee to have completed its discussions on more clauses after its 90 hours of work up to 16 April. By then it had had 32 sittings, during which it had considered 13 clauses and two new clauses. There were still 36 clauses and nine schedules remaining, not to mention several new clauses—in other words, three or more times work than had already been completed.
Apart from the time spent on clause 1, three other clauses took more than 10 hours each, and four more required between six and eight and a half hours each. It may be argued that that is reasonable, and I am not directly quarrelling with it, but the House understands very well that Bills have to advance through the House at a pace that will enable them to be enacted at the end of a Session. I would not wish to minimise in any way the importance of any or all of the issues involved. I accept that some clauses have been accepted without lengthy debate. Nevertheless, it seems plain that progress altogether is not sufficient to ensure the passage of the Bill. The average rate of progress has been about five lines per hour. If the same rate were continued the Bill would not emerge from Committee in time to become law this Session. At that rate of progress the Committee would need to sit well into the autumn, if not into next year.
I think that we all agree that the Bill is very important and introduces significant changes. However, the issues of principle that it raises are capable of being argued fully and carefully with greater brevity than has so far been the case. I know that it is usual for debates in Committee to re-traverse ground that has been covered already. I am aware that that happens quite often. However, it seems probable that the Committee would have been able to reach conclusions on a number of amendments at an earlier stage.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I shall not comment on whether it is for the Leader of the House or the House of Commons itself to decide whether matters should be dispatched more speedily than they have been. However, even if it is the Government's view that some of the major issues could have been dispatched with greater speed, why is it that they were unable to move closure motions in Committee? The reasonableness of the

speed of the debate may be measured by the fact that throughout all the hours of debate in Committee only three closure motions were moved.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that this is an issue for the House to decide. I have read the Hansard reports of the proceedings in Committee in order to form a view. I confess that I can form that view only by being outside the Committee. Therefore, it is for the House to come to a conclusion. I am putting the case as the Government see it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete what I wish to say.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Pym: I wish to make more progress. It would be helpful to the House if I could make further progress.
I note that there were strong protests—I make no objection about this—from the Opposition whenever it was suggested that the Committee should sit for longer hours, and that was despite the comparatively slow progress that was being made. In seeking to oppose the sittings motion that was designed to extend the time available to the House, the Opposition must have appreciated—they were quite entitled to do this—that they were making the introduction of an allocation of a timetable motion much more likely.
On 3 March it took an hour and three-quarters to decide whether the Committee should sit in the afternoons. I think that originally the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) thought that he might be in favour of those sittings, but in the event he and his right hon. and hon. Friends decided to vote against the motion. However, the motion was carried. I understand the reluctance of the Opposition to accept it. It is obviously desirable to avoid Committee sittings in the afternoon when they overlap important debates in the House. However, they have had to take place before.
It must have been clear to the Opposition that morning sittings only would give the Bill no prospect of completion in sufficient time. In the end the Government had no choice, and we have no choice now but to bring forward this motion. I acknowledge that the Opposition are fully entitled to conduct their proceedings as they decide. They have made clear their opposition to the Bill in principle. I understand that they have undertaken to repeal the Act, if the Bill is enacted, if they are ever returned to office. They have made it plain that they are unwilling to cooperate in the Bill's progress. For example, although part II follows much the same pattern as part I, the Opposition have tabled for part II precisely the same amendments as they tabled at the equivalent stage in part I. They are entitled to do that, but the time taken could be just as long.
The motion that we have tabled will facilitate the process of consideration without depriving the Committee or the House of adequate time for debate. The House will be aware that the Committee passed a sittings motion last night to sit on Wednesday mornings and evenings, in addition to Tuesdays and Thursdays. I understand that there was a view among the Opposition that they were against the extension, but there was no vote against the motion and it was carried.
The Government are as anxious as anyone that the later clauses should be properly and thoroughly considered. I assure the House that the timetable that we have put before


it allows for that. In our view the motion provides the best way of organising the remaining time so that the fullest and best use can be made of it.
I emphasise that the Government have done their utmost at all stages to try to expedite progress and to answer the many points that have been raised. I know that my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), have been assiduous in explaining the Bill's provisions.
I stress, above all, that the fact that we have found it necessary to table the motion does not mean that we are in any way trying to ride over the anxieties and fears that have been aroused. Those anxieties have been most clearly felt among members of the ethnic communities who are settled here. Those fears are not well founded, and the Government have shown on many occasions that they are misplaced. The Government are committed to harmonious race relations, and I must make it plain that the decision to introduce the motion does not affect that position.
The Government have responded constructively to the apprehensions that have been expressed since the Bill's introduction. We have accepted a number of important amendments and we have tabled others in a constructive response to allay the concerns that have been expressed. The motion does not represent a means of evading or ignoring proper discussion of the Bill. The motion has relevance only to the Bill's progress through the House, and it is not an attempt to stifle discussion.
All Governments must have due regard to the progress of their legislation. the Government are committed to the passage of this important Bill. It cannot be allowed to founder because of the lack of speed with which it is currently being debated in Committee. The time so far spent has not yielded enough progress, so we must allocate more time and use it to best advantage. The time allowed in the motion gives the Committee until 14 May to report. There are then three days allowed for Report and Third Reading. A substantial allocation of time for Report is necessary in my view, because many hon. Members who are not members of the Committee will wish to express views on the issues raised. I think that the House will accept that what is here proposed is generous by our standards and practice. In the circumstances of the Bill I believe that is entirely appropriate. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to approve the motion.

Mr. John Silkin: The Leader of the House and I have seen many timetable motions in our time. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that I thought that he was singularly unhappy in moving this one. He was not at all sure of himself, and he has been sure of himself in the past.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Silkin: No, the right hon. Gentleman was not happy when he moved it. That was extremely clear. I do not altogether blame him for that. Nothing he said will have altered the mind of the Opposition that we must totally and utterly oppose the motion.
During Question Time yesterday the Prime Minister talked about the Conservative Government only just equalling the number of guillotine motions that my right

hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition introduced in one day when he was Leader of the House in the Labour Government, as though there is a ration of guillotines that we are permitted to have and that we must not exceed it. That is the constitutional procedural equivalent of the totting-up provisions in road traffic offences. Of course, the Prime Minister does not know very much about the running of the House, and she never did know much about it.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend knows how to run the country.

Mr. Silkin: However, the right hon. Lady has a competent Leader of the House and she could have asked him for his opinion. Had she gone to the Leader of the House, I think that he would have said "We are not discussing whether in principle it is a good idea to allocate time to Bills. We are discussing a particular timetable motion in particular circumstances in relation to a particular Bill. This afternoon we can forget about previous guillotine motions and the arguments surrounding them". I am sure that that is what he would have said, because that is what he said in, respect of the Scotland Bill 1977. That would have been right because one has to consider every timetable motion according to the circumstances of the particular Bill.
The Leader of the House clearly defined the gap between the two sides.

Sir Frederick Burden: In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member made it clear that the Opposition would oppose the Bill in every way possible. They have stated that they will repeal it. Therefore, it is clear that, had the guillotine motion not been introduced, there would have been no possibility of the Bill going through during this Session of Parliament.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening closely to what I said. I was talking about the timetable motion, and I said that we would oppose it. We are not now talking about the principles of the Bill.
The Leader of the House talked about the gap between us. There is a gap between the two sides on the matter. The Prime Minister said that the Bill is purely to define citizenship, although she said something different when she was in India. Then she said that it was a Bill to prevent the country from being swamped or overrun by immigrants. The Opposition. say that, whatever the motives of the Home Secretary, the Bill discriminates on the grounds of race and colour. There is a great divide between the two views.
The Government have taken the view that the major points of the Opposition's case should be rejected. They have rejected the view that no child should be born stateless as a result of the Bill, and that the naturalisation process should be transformed into an objective test with the right of appeal. They have rejected the view that the registration rights now enjoyed by Commonwealth citizens and foreign wives should be exercisable throughout their lifetime, and that sex equality should be achieved by giving men the same citizenship rights as women and not, as the Bill proposes, by taking rights from women.
Whoever is right or wrong on whether the Bill is purely about citizenship or whether it discriminates, consideration of such a Bill must be conducted in the open and with


maximum publicity. For that reason, the Opposition warned the Government that that must be done in one of two ways. The usual way is that which was employed by the Leader of the House when he was Patronage Secretary and the European Communities Bill was dealt with. That was the way used when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was Leader of the House and the devolution Bills were dealt with on the Floor of the House to ensure the maximum publicity, discussion and openness.
Another way was open to the right hon. Gentleman. It was not as good, but it was possible to use it if he insisted on discussing the Bill in Committee. It was to use the new Bill procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I put that possibility to him and to his predecessor. At the time, he said that one can use the new procedure only for Bills that are not opposed. He is wrong, because later today we will be dealing with the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which is subject to the new procedure and on which the House will divide. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not ride. At the time, we warned the Government that the British Nationality Bill was of vital interest to everyone in this country and that therefore, it had to have maximum publicity.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that Governments must listen to Oppositions from time to time, particularly on matters about which Oppositions feel deeply. The smooth running of the House depends on the willingness of Governments to concede from time to time, as well as to enforce their will, particularly when procedure and discussion are at risk. Unfortunately, in this case, the Government did neither.
I am not alone in saying this. The Times has said it, although it supports most of the contents of the Bill. The Bill is long, complex and far-reaching in its effects. Even the Government's friends have their doubts. Only two days ago there was a long and interesting article in The Daily Telegraph which gave voice to those doubts. The Churches have also expressed their doubts about the Bill, whether or not they are friendly with the Government. Therefore, not only the Opposition have had doubts.
Among those who have had doubts is the Home Secretary. He has had considerable doubts because he has had to make a number of concessions. He has made the concession that those who are British by naturalisation or registration may transmit their citizenship to children born abroad. He has also made a number of other concessions which are perhaps not as important as that but they are important all the same. Therefore, the Bill has changed its form.
When The Times, which is largely in favour of the Bill, and others who are in favour or are willing to keep an open mind believe that it is wrong to impose the guillotine, the Government should listen.
The right hon. Gentleman says that much more of the Bill is to be discussed. A great deal more is to be discussed. However, his answer to that is to say that a timetable motion shall be introduced because the Opposition will want to discuss important matters with as much scrutiny as the earlier part of the Bill was discussed. That is true. The right hon. Gentleman says that without the motion we shall not be able to pass the Bill during this Session. There is a simple answer to that, particularly as

the right hon. Gentleman conceded at the beginning that, while much time may have been taken on certain aspects of the Bill, there has been no filibustering. Members on the Government Benches always think that there is filibustering, although the managers do not.
Amendments are drafted for the Government by their civil servants, but Oppositions have to draft their amendments as they go along. Often one has to keep an amendment going in order to have time to put down another amendment. I am told by my right hon. and hon. Friends that that has not happened on the Bill so far.

Mr. Michael Mates: rose

Mr. Silkin: I shall not give way, as I am coming to the end of my speech.

Mr. Mates: rose—

Mr. Silkin: I shall not give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Silkin: I was about to offer a simple remedy to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Mates: The right hon. Gentleman is courteous; I thank him for giving way. He made an astonishing assertion that there was no filibustering in Committee. Perhaps he will quickly consult his hon. Friends and ask them how they could spend several hours discussing citizenship of a territory which has no citizens. That is one small example.

Mr. Silkin: I shall save the House some time by sending the hon. Member a copy of The Times leader of 29 April. The Times believes that the general contents of the Bill are right, although it has some reservations. However, it says that it is wrong to have a timetable motion, because there has been no filibustering. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he would have realised that the right hon. Gentleman was not saying that there had been filibustering, only that the Bill would take up a great deal of time and that without the motion it would not be passed in this Session.
What is the urgency for the Bill? Why does it have to be pushed through? Is there really a vital time issue? Of course there is not. The Bill could be introduced in the next Session. As the Home Secretary said, it could be introduced in such a way that it could be reported to the House and be given a Third Reading in plenty of time. There is no reason why it should not be deferred for the Session. That has been suggested.
A letter in The Daily Telegraph today suggests that the Bill might be deferred until the next Session while some of the arguments expressed in The Daily Telegraph and some of the possible consequences that the Home Office might not have realised that the Bill entails are investigated.
It is possible to make amends. The Home Secretary has said from the beginning that he does not like timetabling constitutional Bills. It was wrong to take the Bill upstairs, hidden away, without its appearing on the Floor of the House or being subject to the new procedure. We should have been allowed to get to grips with the important issues in the Bill.
On that basis, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take the Bill away and withdraw the timetable motion. He


should bring the Bill back next Session. Let us then consider it on the Floor of the House or under the new procedure.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an unhappy day for both sides of the House. It is more unhappy than is usual when an allocation of time motion is debated. There are guillotines and guillotines. There are guillotines which almost everybody can foresee from the Second Reading of a Bill onwards, when the Opposition, as they are entitled to, take an attitude of total opposition and, making no bones about it, say that they intend to use the time weapon in order to destroy that legislation. In such cases it has been recognised for many years that if a Government are to govern they must seek the assistance of the House as a whole in providing a timetable for that legislation.
This legislation is not of that kind. It is true that at a certain stage in its progress the Opposition intimated that they were so gravely in disagreement with it that they would look to substantial repeal, if and when they had the opportunity. Yet I think that neither I—and I have attended most of the hours of sitting of the Committee—nor most other members of the Committee could perceive any difference in the manner in which amendments and principles were discussed previously and subsequently to that declaration. The nature of the opposition to the Bill was not of a political or partisan character, nor was it so determined that a guillotine was inevitable.
This belongs to that much smaller class of guillotines, the guillotines that nobody wanted and which in retrospect we shall regret. In particular this is a guillotine which comes after most of the major issues of principle in the Bill have been discussed in Committee and disposed of. I must protest against the mathematical calculations which the Leader of the House was advised to offer. For example, the right hon. Gentleman divided the number of clauses disposed of already into the total number of clauses in the Bill, whereas in the Bill, as in most Bills, a large number of clauses towards the end are either formal or such as to attract little or no amendment or debate.
Again, it is true—and the Leader of the House referred to it—that part II reproduces, though in a different context, much that has already been debated and disposed of in the provisions of part I. The Leader of the House was, however, unfair to cite the fact that the Opposition tabled corresponding amendments to the second part of the Bill to those which had been debated on the first part as indicating a deliberate intention to waste the time of the Committee and to protract proceedings. Indeed, they had no choice—unless they were to be ridiculous—but to table the same amendments to part II; for otherwise they would have been told that they did not mean what they said when part I was debated. Yet it is clear that the Committee is disposed to treat the amendments to part II not precisely as consequential, in the technical sense of the term, but as dealing with matters largely debated and disposed of already.
Five out of six of the really major issues of citizenship in the Bill have now been fully debated, and the Committee has left them behind—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: I see a head being shaken on the Government Front Bench. One could argue a little about the exact fraction, but certainly the great majority of the major issues of principle, issues which it would have been disgraceful not to debate in Committee at full length, already lie behind the Committee. This guillotine is being introduced, therefore, after most of the more difficult parts of the Bill have been dealt with.
The guillotine is a confession of failure, a confession that the House, on both sides, has wished to deal with a Bill of major constitutional importance without artificial restraints upon the way in which it is debated—especially as it was taken upstairs and not, like the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, kept on the Floor of the House, and has found itself frustrated in that desire. The Bill, then, falls into the category of guillotines—like that imposed at a very late stage on the European Assembly Elections Bill in the previous Parliament—which are confessions of failure.
So let us examine why the House, in Committee and on the Floor, has failed in achieving its undoubted intention of dealing with this constitutional measure with full responsibility and without artificial limitation of time.
I do not believe that the fault lies with procedure. Some commentators out of doors have suggested that we should be using a different type of Committee for the consideration of the Bill. To me it is preposterous to suggest that we would have made better progress—and I deny that we have made bad progress—if we had been able to have a number of additional sittings in which outside witnesses could have been interrogated.
Indeed, I would go further. The illumination which the Committee stage of a Bill such as this is intended to produce is obtained primarily by debate. It is obtained primarily by a confrontation in political debate, because this is essentially a political Bill. We are not in much doubt or dispute about the legalities or the facts. The numerical and legal facts that we lacked were provided as we went along by the Government and are not in question. The debate is about political intentions, about the political principles of citizenship.
Whatever may be the other uses of the experimental new procedure—of which I personally have little hope— I cannot believe that it would have contributed to the acceleration or the improvement of our procedure on this Bill. To complain of the procedure and say that we should change the rules is like those who have been spectators or participants in an unhappy match wanting the rules of the game itself to be changed. What we ought to do, and what it would be more useful for us to do, is to examine what went wrong with this particular game. I would like briefly to try to do that.
The blame must primarily, although not exclusively, rest with the Government. The Government knew what they were about when they embarked upon this legislation. They had in mind the stop lines or dates at which certain stages were to be accomplished if the Bill was to reach the statute book by October. Nevertheless, the Second Reading did not take place until 28 January. One must put it on record that for a Government to come to the House at the end of April for an allocation of time motion on a. Bill like this—the most important Bill of the Session—when the Bill only received its Second Reading at the end of January is a confession of faulty tactics. For I challenge disagreement with the statement that this is indeed the most important Bill of the Session. In fact, it


is arguably the most important Bill of several Sessions, dealing as it does with the definition of our citizenship itself.
In retrospect, had the Government allowed the extra month or six weeks which it was fully within their power to allow in planning their business for this Session, I cannot believe—and I think everyone who has been on the Committee on both sides would agree—that in that case we would have seen an allocation of time motion. Most of us who have lived through the sittings of the Committee as the Bill has gone on have had in our minds an estimate of probability that the proceedings in Committee would be completed somewhere around Whitsun at the rate at which we were proceeding with the major issues. So we are reaping now the fruits of a misjudgment in the planning of the Session and the placing of this outstandingly important Bill.

Mr. Mates: How can the right hon. Gentleman, having sat, as I have, through all these sittings, concede, as I believe he has conceded, that the Opposition, in the way that they were deliberately delaying our proceedings and wasting our time would ever have let the Bill come out of Committee, whether or not it had gone in six weeks earlier? Is it not the case that they have made plain their total opposition to the Bill and their desire and eagerness to use every single ruse at their parliamentary disposal to prevent the Bill from ever reaching even the end of the Committee stage?

Mr. Powell: If that was the Opposition's intention, I must say they are far more incompetent than I take them for. If that is using "every single ruse" in the parliamentary rule book for holding up a Bill, the Government are going to have an easy ride in this Parliament.
I have certain other criticisms to make, to which I will come in a moment; but let it be put on the record at the outset that it was the Government themselves who, on their own timetable and intentions, chose to deprive themselves of six weeks of debating time in Committee. That fact ought to influence the mind of the House when it is considering this motion.
There were other, but minor, tactical errors, and I will mention only one. The Leader of the House referred to the point of time at which the sittings of the Committee were extended. There was misjudgment there. It would have been wise to wait substantially longer before extension into the afternoon and evening, which would undoubtedly eventually be necessary, was introduced. There is a Parkinson's law, whether we like it or not, which applies to an Opposition who are in no way obstructive. If hon. Members know that they have all the evening in front of them, it is human nature to use all the evening. That has nothing whatsoever to do with deliberate obstruction. The House and the Committees of the House know perfectly well that they debate best when they are under some degree of pressure of time and when the end of the sitting is visible as the debate proceeds.
In my view, that pressure was removed far too early. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of sittings which it had then taken to dispose of clause 1. But he did not refer to the fact that at least three of the absolutely outstanding principles of the Bill are in clause 1, and had been disposed of in the debates on that clause.

At that point of time it was particularly unwise to have attempted, not very successfully, by lengthening the daily sittings, to accelerate the proceedings of the Committee.
I come to a matter in which responsibility is shared by both sides of the House. Everyone knows that in this House we get our business through most successfully when there is some degree of understanding between the two sides. I refer to a sort of understanding which is perfectly compatible with bitter parliamentary hostility and antagonism but still is understanding for the purpose of making things work. Considering that both sides of the House—and neither of them would deny this—devoutly hoped that this Bill, of all Bills, could be passed without the guillotine, the fact that we have this motion today is a sign of the breakdown of that understanding which ought to have existed and which the House was entitled to expect.
At the first sitting of the Committee upstairs I expressed regret that the Home Secretary himself was not taking charge of the Bill in Committee. I am sure that the Minister, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), will accept that this is in no way in derogation of himself or his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; but that the Home Secretary should not personally be in charge of every stage of a Bill of this importance is out of all normal convention and expectation. This is not only his Bill of the Session; this is his Bill of the Parliament. If the Home Secretary himself had been in charge of the Committee it would have been far easier to have obtained that understanding, in the sense that I have defined it, which was necessary if the House was going to achieve what it wanted to.
In order to have an understanding, however, there must be two parties to it, and I do not feel that the Committee had the advantage of full leadership in Committee from the Front Bench of the Opposition. I know a lot of jocular remarks are made when a right hon. or hon. Gentleman has occasion to absent himself from the proceedings of the Committee. But on a Bill of this importance the Committee would have been helped, and the necessary understanding would have been easier to obtain, if the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—even if the Home Secretary was going to be absent—had found it possible to give to the Bill—which after all is just as important for him as it is for the Home Secretary—his undivided and continuous attention.
What happened in Committee was not that there was filibustering. Some speeches were longer than they needed to have been—if anyone wishes to say that that included some of mine, so be it—but certainly that was not through any intention to delay proceedings. What there has not been, on either side of the Committee, is that deliberate leadership which alone would have made it possible for a Bill of this importance, a Bill that ought to have been taken on the Floor of the House, to have emerged from Committee without the necessity for this allocation of time motion.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Powell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I want to conclude my remarks.
The House should reflect upon that and try to draw a lesson from it for the future; for though we shall have


many allocation of time motions in future, I do not believe that we shall want to come to an allocation of time motion again on a Bill like this.
As a final and separate point, I do not consider that the proposed allocation of time for the remaining stages—three days on the Floor of the House for the Report and Third Reading—is adequate for the importance of the Bill. Many matters which have been dealt with in Committee will not be selected for a debate by yourself, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your discretion; but it is right that the House as a whole should be able to debate, though more briefly, all the great principles of the Bill that the Committee has debated at greater length. I do not think that will be possible in three days up to midnight, and I consider that an additional blemish upon a motion which the House as a whole, if it passes it, will pass with regret and with a sense that it has failed in an attempt to which it had set its mind.

Mr. Michael Mates: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), particularly when he is making a contribution about House of Commons matters. As is his custom, he has spoken to us with great logic and clarity. However, perhaps rarely for him, he has not gone quite as far into one of the subjects he mentioned as he might have done.
The right hon. Gentleman took both sides of the House to task for the lack of understanding between them about the progress that might have been made. When he said that they had failed to come to an agreement I wondered who he meant by "they". He could have been referring to the usual channels operating between the Government Front Bench and the official Opposition. He could have meant a deep difference of opinion in procedure which developed throughout the Committee proceedings between the official Opposition and the official opposition to the Opposition which has been coming from those below the Gangway, or the official opposition to the Opposition in the shape of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), who left his party during the Committee proceedings.
One major reason why there has been so little progress is the complete absence of agreement from the Opposition as to what progress, if any, is to be made. I make a distinction between the reasonably responsible attitude which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has sometimes shown as to progress and the totally unreasonable attitude of the hon. Members for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and Barking (Miss Richardson), who are determined that no progress shall be made at any time in any circumstances. Into that latter bracket must come, if only by virtue of the length of his contributions, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
It is this total disarray in the Opposition, which is not unknown to us, which has caused the Government inevitably to bring forward this timetable motion. Having sat through almost all the proceedings, as have most of my hon. Friends, I can say with heartfelt feeling that it has come not a moment too soon.
It is beyond doubt that more progress could have been made if all the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South had been adhered to. If the Opposition intended to make sensible and responsible

progress on the Bill, we could now be three-quarters of the way through it, and we could be approaching the state of affairs that the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested, whereby the Bill could have been out by Whitsun, which has to be a target date if the Bill is not to be frustrated from becoming law in this Session.
There is no reason why the Government on this Bill should be frustrated in their intention. It is an intention that the Government publicised well in advance and consulted about in avance. The Government have produced a Bill entirely in accordance with all the principles on which they were elected and in accordance with what they announced they would do.
There is no question that the Bill has been rushed through. There is no question that any part of it needs to go through neglected, except by the deliberate choice of the Opposition to filibuster and to delay our proceedings by every means they can.
I shall not go into all the examples; I shall just name one evening when we first decided to sit after dinner. In his usual robust way, the hon. Member for York said in my hearing to his chums "If they sit after dinner, I shall make damned sure they make no progress at all." The hon. Gentleman was as good as his word. He addressed us for an hour and 10 minutes. He was followed by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), who at one stage spoke for an hour and a quarter. For the first time I realised the literal meaning of being asleep on one's feet. At that stage all he was determined to do was to continue, not to make sensible argument or offer constructive suggestions. We adjourned that sitting shortly after two am. At the next sitting the hon. Gentleman was on his feet again from 10.30 until 11.10. The hon. Member for York followed him from 11.10 to 11.40. All this on an amendment about which they did not feel strongly enough to divide the Committee. If that is not the most blatant example of a waste of House of Commons time, I do not know what is.
No one argues about clause 1. It is, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, at the heart of the whole debate and it is right that time was spent on it. That is why, in response to what the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, no closure was sought or wanted. If the Opposition's assertion that they would be a responsible Opposition over the Bill were true, there would be no need for any closures, but nor would we have dwelt on certain aspects at inordinate length.
For how long did we discuss British Antarctic territory citizenship, although there are no citizens? We discussed it for well over an hour. We went over the whole course—igloos, penguins. That was not in the interest of constructive debate. There was a constructive point to be made—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The fact that schedule 6 included two territories that had no inhabitants was of great importance for judging the intention and theory behind the structure of the schedule and behind part II of the Bill and the creation of citizenship of the British dependent territories. The argument was pertinent to the whole question that was at issue.

Mr. Mates: I was just at the point of acknowledging that when the right hon. Gentleman intervened. I will now repeat it. I said that there was some argument to be put; there was a point to be made, but not a point that need have


taken more than an hour of the Committee's time while we talked about penguins and igloos and potential citizens, and even at one stage what the rights of women might be in this territory which had no citizens. That was sheer frivolity and time-wasting. Although it might have amused us in a boring sitting, there is no excuse for it. Furthermore, those members of the public who listen to our proceedings must have found it very strange that we were wasting so much of our parliamentary time over such trivial matters.
It is because the Opposition have failed to raise the level of their argument at any stage that we have had to grind on wasting time. I am talking here about the official Opposition. I might come later to what the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West said, which is quite different. He has a point of view that has nothing to do with the Opposition point of view. He has voted against the Opposition more times than have my hon. Friends.
The official Opposition have no substantive argument. They fall back on what I can only call the scare tactics that they have used since the Bill's inception—that it is racist, sexist and unjust, and that they will repeal it and produce another in its place. What they did between 1974 and 1979 does not bear repeating, because they did nothing about this problem. They were afraid to tackle it. They had no intention of legislating on it because they knew that they would never get such legislation through Parliament. So they left it. Now, with the irresponsibility of Opposition, they are bold and brave and say "This is scandalous and we shall repeal it."
I am sure many other hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall finish by asserting one or two of the facts about the Bill, as opposed to the myths, which is all we have had from the Opposition. If it were racist I should want nothing to do with it, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not put his name to it and most of my hon. Friends would not be supporting it. It is not racist and it is not sexist. It is necessary and fair and it must be put on to the statute book. It must not be frustrated by the irresponsibility, time-wasting and frustrations of the Opposition who can only do that, given their divided approach to the Bill.
We have been criticised for having improved the Bill. I am proud that we have improved it and that it is a better Bill than it was when it went into Committee. All the improvements and suggestions have come from the Conservative Benches and they have been accepted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the spirit in which they were offered. If I were to give one bit of advice to the Opposition it would be that they should offer constructive improvements, because they will find that the Conservatives will be more than ready to listen to them. They should not continue to waste our time and frustrate the intentions of the Government, who have a mandate for what they are doing.

Mr. David Alton: Many hon. Members have already expressed the view that this legislation will cause much anxiety in the immigrant community, and for that reason alone considerable time should be spent by the House in considering the serious implications of the Bill.
Many in the immigrant community have expressed to me and to other hon. Members the view that the legislation is being rushed through with indecent haste. Sixty million people who live in Britain will have their rights affected by the Bill, because their nationality will be defined into new categories and many millions will be affected by the new rules proposed for acquiring United Kingdom citizenship. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that this is probably the most important Bill to be debated during the lifetime of this Parliament. It is certainly the most important Bill in the present Session. Therefore, the Government are dishonest to pretend that this is not a constitutional measure.
From the beginning, we Liberals believed that it should have been treated as a constitutional measure and should have been handled by a Committee of the whole House. At least, it should have been sent to a Special Standing Committee or an ad hoc Select Committee, as urged by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party on Second Reading.
Instead, when the Government introduced the Bill they decided that they would push it through as quickly as they could. With six months of the Session already gone they stuffed it into a Standing Committee and they have been reduced to introducing what can only be described as a squalid guillotine manoeuvre, effectively denying proper discussion of the most far reaching reforms. I remind the House that the Liberal Party was denied the opportunity to speak in Committee.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) of the Social Democrat Party, which has, I understand, some sort of friendly relationship with the hon. Gentleman's party—perhaps I am wrong—said earlier this week that nearly all the main issues of substance have already been discussed? To tell the House that this is a squalid measure curtailing discussion, when the vast bulk of things of importance have already been discussed, is quite misleading.

Mr. Alton: I disagree with what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said outside the House, and will no doubt say so inside it later, that the Opposition believe that the issues involved in the Bill have not been adequately debated.
The Liberal Party was denied the opportunity of sitting on the Committee considering the Bill. We polled about 4½ million votes—8 per cent. of those affected by the Bill supported my party at the last election. However, we were denied the opportunity of putting our view in Committee so we are more concerned about not having our views heard during the later stages.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the House on how many occasions a Liberal Member occupied a seat in the Public Gallery to observe the proceedings in Committee, and to consider them so that he could discuss them afterwards with his colleagues? During the 30 or so sittings of the Committee which I have attended I have not seen any Liberal Member present.

Mr. Alton: Hon. Members become members of a Committee to put a point of view. Members of the Liberal Party were denied the right to put that view. One can read


the Committee debates in Hansard and it is pointless to sit in the Public Gallery to listen to other people when one is denied the chance of putting a point of view.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Getleman will be aware that he is repeating a statement that we have heard many times before. On Second Reading he did not speak but the leader of his party spoke. Will he inform the House whether the leader of his party expressed an interest in sitting on the Committee?

Mr. Alton: I should have thought that the hon. Member would know that leaders of parties do not sit on Standing Committees. We expressed a desire to participate in the Committee. My right hon. Friend made it clear to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and to other hon. Members that the Liberal Party took it as a grave insult that we were not given the opportunity to have an hon. Member present in Committee. The Labour Party conspired in what I regard as an unholy alliance to bring about the selection of the right hon. Member for Down, South—who admittedly has a distinctive point of view to put, which most people know about. It seems odd that the right hon. Member was selected, thus preventing a Liberal Member from being selected.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May we lay this myth? In making the selection of the Committee there was one place available for minor parties. It rested between the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and a Liberal Member. The name put forward by the Liberal Party was that of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who told the Opposition Whip "I do not want to be on this Bill. Press for my inclusion as much as you can, but make sure that I don't get on."

Mr. Alton: I am surprised by that information from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), because the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will be aware that the Liberal Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), put my name forward for inclusion as a member of the Committee. Having gone to the trouble of reading Hansard, though not having been present at that meeting of the Committee, I see that the hon. Member for York said:
On the question of trying to censor the right hon. Gentleman's views,"—
that is, the right hon. Member for Down, South—
I can only say that, as chairman of my party's home affairs committee, I was consulted about whether the right hon. Gentleman or some other hon. Member from the Liberal Party should be on the Committee. I gave it as my strong view that he ought to be on the Committee because he represents a distinct point of view which should be aired in the Committee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 26 February 1981; c. 205.]

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is reckless in his use of other hon. Member's names in his cause. With reluctance, I point out that the leader of his party had a conversation with me about the membership of the Committee, but that was after the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) had been nominated.
The leader of the Liberal Party agreed with me that the complication and difficulty arose because the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was—I use the word with which the leader of the Liberal Party agreed—"equivocal" about his wish to sit on the Committee.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the right hon. member for Sparkbrook for that information. He will realise that it is for the Liberal Party to decide who to nominate to serve on a Committee and not for the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My name was submitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is a busy man and has many other functions to perform in the House. He was unable to provide the time necessary; time which I should happily have given to serve on the Committee. I can understand why the Labour Party was embarrassed because it voted for the right hon. Member for Down, South, despite his well-known views on the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to disclose what goes on in a Committee unless that Committee has reported its findings to the House.

Mr. Alton: I turn to the—

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: I must make progress. The House would not forgive me if I took more time on a fairly irrelevant matter.
It is far more important to discuss the consistency that my party has shown on race relations matters over many years. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook admitted recently that he was sorry that he had voted for the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. It might not be a bad thing to remind the House that the Liberal Party's view has been distinctive for one reason more than any other—it has been a consistent point of view.
We opposed the shameful way in which the Labour Government rushed the pernicious and wicked 1968 Act through the House. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) referred to an editorial in The Times of 20 April and I should like to quote from an editorial in Me Times on 2 March 1968 referring to the guillotine introduced to rush through the 1968 Act. The Times said
The Labour Party now has a new ideology. It doesn't any longer profess to believe in the equality of man. It doesn't even believe in the equality of British citizens. It believes in the equality of white British citizens.
The Labour Government used methods in 1968 which have been disowned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but he voted for that legislation and the Act was one of the worst things that that Labour Governrnem did.
The Liberal Party has been consistent. One can go back to the turn of the century, because in 1905 Asquith moved amendments to protect individual liberty against the Conservative Government's Aliens Bill—the first piece of pernicious legislation in this area.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Was it not a Liberal Government who introduce the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which was the beginning of the obnoxious system of immigration control to which the hon. Gentleman objects?

Mr. Alton: I dispute that that was the beginning of this sort of legislation, but going down that road would probably serve no useful purpose.
When talking about the shabby way in which the House and my party have been treated, I must emphasise the fears and anxieties of those within the immigrant community. I represent some, and others have written to me from all


over the country to say that they regard the nationality law as a running sore and a reason why there will be greater problems in immigrant communities in future.
Rushing the legislation through by use of the guillotine will cause long-term harm. There is no urgent reason why the legislation should be carried in the current Session. It is clear from the Committee proceedings that much has been proposed in the Bill that is inherently unsound and the Government should have the good grace to learn from their mistakes and start again.
The Government should introduce redrafted legislation at the start of the next Session and discuss it on the Floor of the House, as befits constitutional matters, or at least send it to a Special Standing Committee that could hear evidence from witnesses and get itself fully briefed on the technicalities and complexities of this difficult subject. Instead, we are faced with a shameful manoeuvre, legislation which has not been properly discussed, a further loss of friends abroad and the likelihood of a string of court cases consequent on ill-digested legislation, leading to suffering and confusion.
I urge the Minister of State to consider some of the points that I have made, to think again about nationality law, and to consider the harmful and damaging effects that the Bill will have on good race relations.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I strongly agree with the attack of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on the principle of Select Committees for a Bill of this nature. In the previous Parliament he and I were on the same side in that argument, supported only by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—a combination which made me temporarily reconsider my position.
I wish to speak not about the nature and character of the Bill, but about the motion, because it concerns me. Like my hon. Friends and, I suspect, a number of other hon. Members, I strongly support the principle contained in the Bill. The 1948 Act was out of date within a year, when India became a republic. Since then, successive Governments have either tinkered with the subject or ignored it. Having seen its implications, its scale and problems, they have said, in effect, that they did not wish to handle something so fundamental, important, difficult and controversial.
When, in Opposition, some of my colleagues were dealing with the matter and trying to produce new proposals, their work was at least based on the idea that an understanding on the definition of British citizenship should be reached for the first time.
I approve of the Bill in principle, but I come back to the motion before us. My dislike of the principle of Select Committees is matched by an increasing dislike of the situation in which important Bills somehow disappear into Standing Committee and the rest of us occasionally hear echoes and rumours and perhaps see reports in the press about what is happening to the legislation.
I have told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others that four major items in the Bill cause me concern and that Back Benchers who are not on the Standing Committee should have the right to speak about and vote on them. Those issues are the right of appeal, the problems concerning the language and character tests, the

cost of naturalisation and the complex and difficult issue of the category of British overseas citizens. I will not deal with those issues now, but I emphasise that they are the sort of issues that hon. Members who are not on the Committee must have the right to debate and vote on.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the fact that we shall have 24 hours of debate on Report, but I ask the Government to consider carefully in the Business Committee the manner in which the time is arranged, so that key questions that do not go to the principle of the Bill but are central to its effectiveness and support—the Bill would have substantial support in the country if those key issues were agreed—can be properly debated.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to look at the question of selection. Many years ago I was an Officer of the House and the question of selection troubled me at that time, because the principle that when a matter has been discussed exhaustively in Committee it cannot be debated on the Floor of the House is a serious limitation on the rights and privileges of hon. Members. I know that selection is a matter for the Chair, but I take the opportunity to ask that the discretion of the Chair should be exercised in the recognition that the issues that I have identified are important subjects on which hon. Members who are not on the Standing Committee should have the right to speak and vote.
I support the motion, because I believe that the points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) have merit in relation to the Committee proceedings and I am glad that we shall have on Report a reasonable time t debate important issues, provided that the selection of the Chair is reasonable to all hon. Members.
There is a certain dreariness about guillotine debates, a certain exchange of reminiscences about how many guillotines took place many years ago and how many were introduced by Mr. Asquith and about Lord Randolph's attack on the closure—"la cloture". I could go on in historical vein. This debate has been characterised by a real concern lest the House could be accused of not having sufficiently debated one of the most significant and important measures of this Parliament.
In supporting the motion, and in thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, particularly for the time that is to be allowed for Report, I want to emphasise the general point that few things are more frustrating for a Back-Bench Member than to be unable to contribute to the proceedings on a Bill in Committee and then be denied the opportunity to contribute when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. The Transport Bill, and the issue of seat belts, was a recent example of that dilemma. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I was fortunate to be one of the Members who served on the Standing Committee on the British Nationality Bill. The description of the proceedings given earlier by the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) was slightly alarming. He seemed to serve on a different Committee.
An interesting aspect of the debates in Committee was the diversity of views expressed by Members on both sides of the political divide. It was enriching and valuable that a sterile unanimity of opinion was not forced upon us.

Mr. Mates: indicated assent.

Mr. Dubs: The hon. Member for Petersfield nods in agreement, yet he criticised Labour Members for showing less than a total unanimity in their approach to the Bill.

Mr. Mates: I echo what the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) says. We had good and stimulating debates, in which sharp differences of opinion were properly and clearly expressed. Alas, those debates were interspersed with hour upon hour of useless tedium. That is why the motion is before the House.

Mr. Dubs: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned two of my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) and Barking (Miss Richardson), suggesting that their views were different and that they had wasted time. My criticism would be that my hon. Friends spoke too little, because their contributions were very brief. I am sorry that they did not have more opportunity to develop their arguments in Committee.
The diversity of opinion in Committee accounted for some of the time that was taken. It was not a matter of filibustering or of speeches that were devoid of content or argument. It was quite the reverse; we were dealing with issues that were important and absorbing, and which we felt deserved detailed scrutiny. If the motion is passed today, I fear that we shall be unable to do our duty in subjecting the remaining clauses to the detailed scrutiny that they require.
Our fault, if any, in Committee was that we did not subject the Bill to a sufficiently detailed scrutiny. I fear that some clauses that were passed may contain the seeds of future problems, which a more detailed analysis by the Standing Committee might have averted.
The Government appear to have approached the Bill in an ill-prepared manner. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that if the Government had wanted to avoid their present difficulty they would have had the Second Reading of the Bill well before the end of January. It was common gossip among Members around Christmas that the Bill would not be brought forward this Session because it had not been presented to the House by Christmas. Many of us were amazed that the Bill had not appeared and wondered whether the Government were having such drafting difficulties that they could not present the Bill this Session. When the Bill finally appeared, we were amazed that the Government were chancing their arm in that way, because the difficulties that we are now discussing were evident and common knowledge among hon. Members as long ago as January, when we had the Second Reading of the Bill.
It is therefore not surprising that the Government were criticised in Committee for not having consulted Commonwealth Governments and others properly since they could then have argued with more conviction than they were able to do in Committee. One can only attribute that to the Government's anxiety to get the Bill through, having introduced it late.
Mention has been made of the time that we spent on the clause and schedule dealing with two territories that have no resident population. However, it was the sheer absurdity of the issue that made us spend time arguing it. On that issue, as on several others, the Government clearly lost the argument but forced it through on a vote. I wish that some members of the Committee had voted in the way that they argued. Time and again, some Government Back

Benchers—I exempt the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) from my criticism—tabled amendments, argued them forcefully, and then voted in the opposite direction. That is one reason why we took so long. Votes did not always follow the drift of the speeches.
Will the Government clarify something that has been bothering us? It has been the subject of rumour and speculation. Is it true that the Government are anxious to introduce a timetable motion today because they want the House to go into Summer Recess not only before the Royal wedding but at least a week before? That may not be true, but it may be one reason why the Government have shown so much haste.
There is much anxiety about the Bill in the country. Those of us who have Asians in our constituencies have had numerous meetings and discussions in an attempt to allay some of the fears felt by Asians and some of the misunderstandings that exist about this legislation. Nevertheless, many of the fears expressed are legitimate. There is a feeling that the Government are pushing through a measure which contains major racist elements. It is for that reason, if for no other, that I regret the Government's decision to shorten the debate on this important and critical measure.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: I agree with one comment of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs), namely, that there is deep concern among ethnic communities. I shall return to that matter later in my brief intervention.
It was my impression that there was a wide measure of agreement within the community that a British Nationality Bill was needed, and that a Bill was needed much along the lines of the one that has been presented to the House by this Government. My appreciation of that need stems largely from the many years during which I had the privilege to serve overseas, recognising that Britain, almost alone of the major countries of the world, did riot have a citizenship of its own. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said, the citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies was defunct within 12 months of its creation, and as the legislation accreted from Governments of both complexions, that citizenship steadily became more and more invalid. It simply did not work. Therefore, I had every hope that the Bill would have a smooth passage through the House.
Given the attitude of the Labour Party and the former Labour Government, there was some ground for expressing that hope. For example, as long ago as February 1974 the Labour Party manifesto promised to review the requirements of British citizenship. We well know the difficulties that the Labour Government encountered. They therefore turned away from the problems that they saw and failed to grasp the nettle. Instead, in 1977 they produced a Green Paper, which, even then, said:
there must be a more meaningful citizenship for those who have close links with the United Kingdom … and who can be expected to identify themselves with British society.
The Government's White Paper closely followed the lines of that Green Paper and, indeed, in a number of respects moved to take account of the anxieties which had been reflected among the immigrant communities. I mention as an example the treatment of dual nationality


which took full and sympathetic account of the special concerns of people who have come here from the Indian Subcontinent. There therefore seemed to be further grounds to hope that on this deeply important measure there could be all-party agreement.
In expressing and cherishing that hope, however, one did so without recognition of the change in the Labour Party. Over the past two years, if any issue has been a litmus test of how the present Labour Party differs from all that went before, it is its performance on this measure. We all know the very delicate sensitivity of community and communal relations. The problem is not confined to Britain. Nor is it confined to any one colour. We know well the problems in the United States. In many parts of the Commonwealth, too, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, we know of the tremendous problems and indeed the loss of millions of lives caused by communal tensions.
Therefore, in our own multi-racial society, the question of citizenship inevitably involves very delicate treatment of sensibilities, sensitivities and community relationships, which should not be an area in which politics are played. Sadly, however, all too many members of the Labour Party and, perhaps, some of the other opposition parties too, have not taken that view.
Quite apart from the problems of the parliamentary timetable, which must be of great concern to the House, and which were so well expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I suggest that there is an extra-parliamentary dimension—a national dimension. That national dimension has been made more important and more sensitive by the activities of so many people representing the Labour Party interest. Not all of them are in the House, but many of them are and, I suspect, many actually served on the Committee. The longer those uncertainties are allowed to continue, the more damage will be done to community relations in this country.
I give as an example a handbill issued by an organisation calling itself the Council for Racial Equality, which operates from 679 Fulham Road. This says that the British Nationality Bill equals the pass law and the council advertises a meeting to stop this "new racist Nationality law" to be held, with the attendance of local Members of Parliament, at the Shepherd's Bush baptist church. I have no idea whether any local Members of Parliament from the Shepherd's Bush area attended that meeting, but all indications suggest that that is typical of the kind of problem with which we have to deal.
The many immigrants from a variety of countries in my constituency have been deeply disturbed by these uncertainties. It is inevitable that people should be concerned and worried about an issue of this kind, but the extent of the concern has been immensely exacerbated by members of the Opposition. For that very reason, a measured timetable must be applied to this legislation. To suggest that what is offered is unreasonable is itself without logic. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—I shall not hold him precisely to his arithmetic—suggested that we had accomplished about five-sixths of the major principles of the Bill. I think that that was his basic point. We are being offered about 45 more hours in Committee to complete the other one-sixth, not to mention 25 hours or so on Report. It seems to me

entirely reasonable that that amount of time should be allotted and that the parliamentary process should then be completed.
I believe passionately that this long delay is damaging. If this measure is dragged out, let alone being allowed to die and then reintroduced next Session, it will exacerbate still further the already very serious harm that has been done to race relations in this country. That harm has not been done by the measure itself, because by no stretch of the imagination is it a sexist or a racist measure. It is an entirely fair and necessary Bill. We shall do great harm to community relations in this country if we allow those who have gone about laying the fuel which has already been ignited by the extremists more time to distribute more fuel which will lead to more conflagrations.
When this Parliament settles the Bill and it becomes an Act, the Government and all of us in this country who feel deeply about the importance of creating a harmonious Britain will have a great job to do in clearing up the mess caused by irresponsibility to which so many members of the Labour Party have contributed.

Mr. Edwards Lyons: It is 33 years since we passed the last British Nationality Act and it may be as long or longer before we pass another. In that context, it is clear that we must get things right in the best way that we can. Time is essential for the consideration of so complicated a measure.
It is interesting that in Committee both Government and Opposition were fragmented from time to time. It has not been made clear that many amendments were put down not by Opposition Members but by Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Speeches supporting those amendments were quite properly made by them and took a considerable time. There were switches in alliances on different issues. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), for example, was sometimes a general for the ranks of Tory dissidents, at other times a colonel in the Official Opposition. That in itself shows how complicated the Bill is.
Although there were occasions when the Opposition could have been briefer without sacrificing the points that they were making, it is also true that the Bill was brought to the House far too late. The Committee began to sit only on 10 February, and it should have been obvious that it would involve considerable pressure.
The Bill affects many millions of people, and many people fear its consequences. Sometimes they have a good reason to be fearful; in other cases it is perhaps because of a misunderstanding. None the less, there is widespread public anxiety about the Bill.
Members of the Committee are receiving and have received many representations about the Bill from diverse kinds of people. They have received representations from large numbers of British expatriates living abroad and from people in Hong Kong, whose Commissioner has sat through large parts of the proceedings on the Bill, and there has been at least one Gibraltarian politician of eminence sitting in the Public Gallery. Academics have written to hon. Members about it. We have had numerous letters from those concerned with the status and rights of ethnic minorities in this country. We have had letters from


South America, from Belgium and from other places abroad. When we see that interest, we realise the wide scope of the Bill.
The groups affected by the Bill include not only East Africans Asians living in East Africa and India and holding United Kingdom passports but children born here of parents whose citizenship status is not clear. The grandchildren of British people living here who will be born abroad have a suspect or difficult status under the Bill. The future grandparents are already writing to express concern. Wives of United Kingdom citizens living here, who are entitled to register as British citizens, will have a time limit under the Bill within which they can register. Therefore, large groups of people are concerned about the Bill.
The Bill has not been thought through properly. It is idle for the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) to say that all the amendments to improve the Bill came from the Government. I shall give two examples to show how wrong he is. An amendment tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) pointed out that under clause 3(2) (b) a British citizen mother had to be working on the day that she gave birth to a child before her child born abroad could be a British citizen. That was nonsense, and the point had been totally missed. The Government have now said that they will take back clause 3 and put it right. That did not come originally from the Government.
My other example is to the credit of Conservative Back Benchers as well as of Opposition Members. According to the Bill as it emerged from the Government, people in this country who would have a right to registration at the time the Bill became law were to be given two years' grace in which to continue to be able to register. There was opposition to that. The Official Opposition took the view that there should be no time limit for such people to apply for registration after the Bill became law—a view with which I agreed. I tabled an amendment to the effect that, if the official Opposition's amendment failed, there should be a period of eight years in which to apply. That was rejected. A further amendment, in the names of two Conservative Members and myself, to the effect that it should be five years instead of two years, succeeded after a long debate, when the Government changed their mind. In other words, combined pressure from Opposition and Government Back Benchers succeeded in persuading the Government to change their mind.
There we see the advantage of a thorough investigation of the issues, of a line-by-line scrutiny of a Bill in order to improve it. The Government have changed their minds as a result of amendments and proposals from each side of the Committee. That has to be borne in mind, because there is, happily, not too much discipline on either side in Committee.
The Government know that many people believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Bill is racialist. The Government know that they are getting a very bad press because of the Bill. It would have been much better for the Government, as well as for the quality and condition of the Bill, if a sensible arrangement could have been reached with the Opposition at an earlier stage so that, instead of having too much unnecessary talk, all important items in the Bill could have been discussed.
There are still some important matters to be dealt with. The Government have no intention whatever of allowing any right of appeal against any decision by the Secretary

of State on any matter arising out of the Bill. It is still a provision in the Bill—it has not yet been debated—that there shall be no obligation on the Secretary of State to give any reason for any refusal of any application under the Bill. Those are serious matters and give rise to grave unease and concern. The Government should make it absolutely certain that matters of that kind receive adequate attention and considerable practical scrutiny. As a result of the failure of the two sides to reach a sensible arrangement about the time available, we shall run the risk that substantial parts of the remainder of the Bill will receive no consideration whatever.
We have seen the old parliamentary game. The Committee was obliged to sit until 2 am and until 4 am, not because it was necessary but because the Government needed to bring up their Chief Whip to go through the usual ritual to prove that there was not enough time to complete the Bill. We were kept up deliberately until 4 am in fulfilment of an old parliamentary ritual, because that is what has to be done before a guillotine motion is introduced. When we were kept up, for no apparent reason, until 4 am, it occurred to me that we were playing the old ping-pong game between the two sides, and that ammunition was being gathered for the purpose of founding a guillotine motion. So it has proved.
The people abroad, the British people living in this country who are affected by the Bill, and the people yet unborn who are affected by it, are entitled to expect the House of Commons to behave in a mature and adult way in considering a Bill as important and crucial as this one. They are entitled to be disappointed that no agreement has been reached to ensure the maximum scrutiny of every important item in the Bill.
It now appears that large parts of the Bill may receive no scrutiny whatever. I do not consider three days on Report to be adequate. It has become clearer and clearer in Committee—to the civil servants, to the Ministers and to the rest of us—that the Bill contains many hidden pitfalls and complications. It is essential, therefore, that the remaining parts of it should receive proper and detailed scrutiny.
The Government have done a great disservice to race relations. However innocent the Government may consider the Bill to be, they know that many people will think—and will be encouraged to think—that the reason why the discussion is being truncated is that the Government want to get rid of a Bill that is causing them so much embarrassment and to have it removed as quickly as possible from public scrutiny.

Mr. Mates: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lyons: The hon. Member for Petersfield asks me to give way and I am happy to do so, but when I listened to his speech this afternoon I was surprised at his apparent intimate knowledge of what went on in the Committee. My recollection of him is one of a large bulky form which dashed in to vote in Divisions. I did not see much of him during our deliberations. What he said about the hon. Lady, the Member for Barking was nonsense. No one has been more careful in her contributions to the Bill.

Mr. Mates: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that, like him, I am involved in another


Committee. That accounts for the absence of both of us on occasion. How many more hours do we need to discuss the Bill?

Mr. Lyons: The hon. Gentleman has not said that I sought to prolong proceedings. Indeed, although my contributions were fairly frequent I sought to keep them to a reasonable length. I do not know how long discussion of the Bill will take. Even at this stage the Opposition Government should get together to ensure full discussion of all the major provisions that remain. Perhaps things would not be too bad if that were to happen. If we deal with the Bill chronologically, the crucial clauses at the end may not be discussed. Those clauses include not only important schedules, but provision for the denial of appeal as well as other provisions which may have serious implications.

Mr. Mates: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I are in substantial agreement. However, it is not for the Government and the Opposition to reach an agreement, but for the Opposition and those Opposition Members who sit below the Gangway to come to an agreement. That is the problem. If the final clauses are not to be left undiscussed, the further 60 hours of Committee proceedings could be sensibly allocated. As a result of the motion, that will be the amount of time left.

Mr. Lyons: We shall have to see. If the Government had thought that 60 hours was an adequate time, they would not have introduced a guillotine motion. The Leader of the House did not allege that there had been filibustering by the Opposition, but the Government obviously believe that 60 hours is not adequate. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that 60 hours is sufficient, he will vote against the motion. That is the logic of his position. This motion will lead the public to believe that something improper is going on. They will believe that the House has let them down by not giving full and adequate consideration to the remainder of one of the most important Bills of the decade.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I do not share in all the strictures that have been levelled against the Opposition from this side of the House. This is a fiendishly complex Bill. We have probably never had to deal with such a difficult Bill within the normal confines of a parliamentary Session. The Bill contains intricate points, many of which involve technical and legal matters. Nevertheless, those points have political connotations. Therefore, it was impossible to allow further discussions without introducing some form of discipline.
The Bill is complex. The immigration Acts sought to remedy some of the huge defects that arose because the Nationality Act 1948 had been almost strangled at birth. That Act remains our only expression of national identity. It was the only law to state who we were. Successive Governments failed to grasp the nettle and failed to see that a new nationality Bill was needed as a result of the dissolution of the Empire and the creation of the Commonwealth. Consequently, immigration problems became so urgent that the defects in our nationality law had to be dealt with by immigration Acts. I am not one of those who say that immigration has no significance as regards the nationality Bill.
I have given a little thought to this subject over the years and I believe that we piled up more and more problems for ourselves. For example, the concept of the right of abode in 1971 represented a brave attempt by the Conservative Government to narrow the definition of nationality down to the United Kingdom. That has caused tremendous problems for those framing the Bill and has led to problems in discussion and understanding. Independence Acts were passed in various colonies. Each provided for citizenship of that colony after independence had been gained, but paid inadequate regard to the problems of those who did not want, or could not gain, citizenship of that colony.
Groups such as the so-called United Kingdom passport holders—the East African Asians—were created. On the whole, they were left out of independence Acts. At least one of our former colonies—Malawi—has a citizenship Act that is blatantly racial. A person may not hold citizenship of Malawi unless one of his parents is of African origin. Thus, many of those who lived as British subjects in Malawi when it was part of the British Empire were excluded from citizenship.
What should we do about such problems? We bear some responsibility for them. As the years passed, greater problems arose which must now be unravelled. Although it is a "nationality" Bill, it does not contain a definition of a British national. It is taken for granted that British nationals are all those to whom the word "British" is to be applied. That involves millions of people around the world and not only those who have the privilege of living in Britain. International law, particularly that which governs responsibility towards refugees, may be involved. Millions of people may be dispossessed or driven out of their territories and may claim that as British nationals they are entitled to admission into the United Kingdom. That is another outstanding problem that the Bill does not deal with.
The Bill is a brave attempt to deal with a difficult problem. It was impossible to put off a solution any longer. However, let us not pretend that the Bill is a complex solution and that there will not be many problems in future. Within the compass of a parliamentary Session we shall probably not get the Bill right, given the limited resources available to political parties. It is doubtful whether we have considered adequately all the ramifications of the Bill, even if we had continued our discussions, without some form of guillotine.
I do not blame the Opposition for the way in which they behaved in Committee. They behaved as Opposition Members usually behave and are pledged to repeal the Bill. We should approach the guillotine motion with mixed feelings. The Bill is a difficult piece of legislation that needs great understanding. It will not be comprehensively understood by most of us. However, it cannot be said that there has not been an improvement, both in our understanding of the Bill and in its text, as a result of our discussions in Committee.
As the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) said, opinions on various aspects of the Bill have cut across party lines, and the result must be improvements to the Bill. It has been, in general, a healthy forum, conducted in good spirits.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that we have probably covered about five-sixths of the basic principles. Nevertheless, we are only on clause 14 or 15 of a 50-clause bill. About three-quarters


of the text remains to be considered. The remaining opportunities for discussion and probing are vast, and no one can blame the Opposition for wishing to take advantage of them.
Some Opposition Members spoke in Committee for much longer than necessary. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) has been indefatigable in speaking on so many points of the Bill with relevance, which is a great art. I admire hon. Members who, at the drop of a hat, can talk for hours about nothing yet remain within the rules of order, although I do not include the hon. Gentleman in that. He has spoken a great deal in Committee, but he keeps to the point. Indeed, our Chairmen have not had to devote too much effort to calling speakers to order.
The guillotine motion is an unfortunate necessity. No one can be blamed for it. It is part of our system, because we insist on completing legislation within one Session. The motion was inevitable in a Bill of such complexity and such vast application. The Government could not risk losing such a vital Bill.
Let me give an example to illustrate the difficulty. The Bill will be unjust to some Britons born abroad. Two classes of Briton are born abroad. The first is those immigrants who are now living in the country and are Britons by naturalisation or registration. Under the Bill, their children born abroad will be British citizens. The second class is Britons by descent, whose children born abroad will not be British. That great injustice, which contradicts all our history, must be remedied. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that he recognised that there is a legitimate grievance here, to which he has promised to pay attention before Report.
I presented a petition to the House a couple of weeks ago from the British community of Venezuela, comprising about 85 people. They and their children were all born abroad, although they, as it were, are ethnic Britons. Their children will not be British in future, which is wrong. Those born abroad before the Bill takes effect should have the right of passing their citizenship to their children, as has been understood to be the case since time immemorial. I intend to continue to prod the Government on that, but it is only one problem to be resolved before the Bill becomes law.
The Bill is vital and urgent, and we must pass it through the House.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In his impressive speech the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) mentioned five points about the Bill that concerned him greatly. Three remain to be debated in Committee, so it cannot be argued that we do not have serious matters left to discuss. However, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, a great many of the major principles have been discussed, which is one reason why we have taken so long.
The speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge is in marked contrast with that of the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), although the latter was at least pleasing in showing that he could speak. He cannot be accused of filibustering, as we have hardly heard from him in Committee. We heard from him today with a vengeance. He totally misrepresented the way that the Committee had approached its task, and showed that he had not been listening to the debates.
The hon. Member had one legitimate complaint. Some of us believe that to sit after dinner and into the middle of the night on a Bill of such complexity and importance is an impertinence to the subject and a gross abuse of our trust for those whose future will be decided by it. It is absurd to take late at night serious decisions that may prejudice the status of some people. Little progress was made late at night, but the hon. Gentleman's strictures are not relevant to the morning and afternoon debates, when we had proper discussions. On the first occasion that we decided to sit after dinner, the Minister conceded that, although we had spent six to 10 sittings on clause 1, there had been no filibustering. Some speeches had been lengthy, including those of the right hon. Member for Down, South and myself, but it was an important clause that merited serious discussion.
We should have continued in that way had the sittings been at reasonable times, and the Government would have got the Bill out of Committee by Whitsun. They have achieved nothing by sitting into the middle of the night. The guillotine is giving them only one week's grace, in their timetable. Had the Bill been out of Committee by Whitsun, it could have been to the other place and back here by October.
It is absurd to impose a guillotine on a Bill the history of which is complicated by the past errors of successive Governments. Since 1948, every Government have made errors of judgment on the subject. Had we, like the remainder of the Commonwealth in 1948, taken our own citizenship, we should not have had the problems of 1962, 1968, 1971 and today.
We are having serious trouble with the Bill—not in defining who are our citizens—although some of the decisions taken by the Government have not helped that—but in deciding what will happen to those who will not be able to become British citizens but yet are our citizens because they hold current citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. That difficult) would not have arisen had we done the sensible thing in 1948.
I had hoped that those who would discuss the Bill would do so on the basis of how we could best remedy the defects introduced by past Governments, principally those introduced in 1948. I hoped that we would start by saving that we would scrub everything clean, begin again and approach the matter from a sensible viewpoint.
The Government began markedly badly by introducing a Bill that was, inevitably, branded as racist because one of their decisions had no relevance to the preceding discussion of the Green Paper or to any preceding discussion in the last Parliament—namely, the provision stating that those naturalised in Britain would not be able to pass their citizenship to children born abroad. That meant that there would be two brands of British citizenship. Because of that conflict we tried to get rid of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Government tried to reinterpret that as British citizenship. Therefore, the Bill began badly.
The Government amended the clause so that the stigma of racialism was removed from the Bill. They made an important concession about the jus soli, but they did not remedy the major grievance that some people could be citizens by birth but others could not. It is not so much the category who will not be citizens by birth that is important, but rather the conflict and the uncertainty created in the minds of those settled here and who have children here. They feel that their children may not have the British


citizenship that they had anticipated. That dubiety will cause trouble in future. It may leave a legacy of distrust about the Bill. I hope that even at this stage the Government will think again.
Apart from those two major concessions—both made before we even began to discuss the Bill—and despite all the hours spent discussing the issues, the Government did not make any concession, other than to extend the period for automatic registration from two years to five years. They made that concession only because two Conservative Members were proposing to vote against their Government. The Minister also agreed that he would reconsider the arguments about the sort of people who could achieve citizenship by descent under clause 3, and would report back before Report stage.
During all the time spent discussing the Bill the Government made no other concessions. That was the pertinent point in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South. Oppositions have no weapon other than time if a Government are arrogant enough to say that they know best and will not concede in any way to the arguments put forward. Serious arguments and criticisms were put forward but met with no response from the Minister because he consistently took the view that he knew best. His reply to a debate was to say that if only people would think about it, they would recognise that his view was correct.
People have thought about the issues. Many have thought a great deal more about them than has the Minister. They reached the conclusion that there are many areas of grievance in the Bill that could easily be remedied if only the Minister would accept that he was not always right. That attitude caused the lengthy after-dinner speeches and the resistance from the Opposition. No attempt was made to fulfil the promises that he made regularly. His words are repeated as he moves his lips, but they have no reflection in his mind. He was not prepared seriously to consider the weaknesses in the Bill.
There are weaknesses in the Bill, and not only with regard to the jus soli provision. There is the question of naturalisation and the test for naturalisation, and the matter of individual colonial citizenship. Most important, there is the question that has always bedevilled any consideration of a new British citizenship, namely, the overseas British citizen. We have not begun our discussion of that part of the Bill. Apparently, there will be no concessions made there, either. Because of that, the Opposition resisted the Bill as best they could within the rules.
If the Minister had been more considerate and more willing to consider the serious views put forward against certain aspects of the Bill, we would have been only too willing to co-operate. If we have now reached the stage where the Government feel that they must put a guillotine on a measure of such importance—a constitutional Bill about the future status of our citizens—we have done so only because of the obstinacy and obduracy of the Minister.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will not expect me to follow him in his remarks. I fear that he has inadvertently put the strongest argument yet for the timetable motion.
The Bill is necessary. I take off my hat to the Government for introducing it. The Home Secretary and the Minister have done an admirable job of both drafting and re-drafting in the light of comments from within and without the House. That reflects their good judgment and the positive contributions made by my hon. Friends in Committee.
I have a qualm about the motion. I do not like timetable motions, because they are too often the resort of those who want to push through what they believe in, against the wishes of those who do not want it pushed through. The specific problem with this motion, compared with others proposed by both this and other Governments, is that, to a great degree, the others have been reactive. They have reacted to obstructive activities in Committee, either upstairs or on the Floor of the House. They have reacted to time wasting and to politically destructive actions by whichever party was in Opposition.
Judged on what has been said both before and during the debate, I believe that this motion is to a large degree anticipatory of difficulties that may occur. Although the Government are right to anticipate difficulties because of the threats made by the Opposition even before the debate began, I nevertheless have more than normal qualms about the timetable for the Bill.
There have been different assessments of the amount of time still required and of the work still to be done. Some say that part I is the major part of the Bill and is now out of the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) thought that five-sixths of the Bill had been debated. The Government suggest that 60 hours are required. That sounds a great deal of time, and time will tell whether it is sufficient. I hope that that will be the case. I should prefer the Government to allow time to tell whether that is sufficient for the Bill to go through the due process of debate both upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
In this debate we must each make our personal assessment. We must strike a balance between supporting the Government in putting through their legislative programme, which they were mandated to do by the thorough-going majority that the Conservative Party obtained at the general election, and showing concern for the means that are used to achieve that end. At the same time, we must also be concerned about the parliamentary means of obtaining the end result. The means are crucial in our role as representatives of our constituents and in expressing our individual and accumulated personal judgment, whatever that may be. Therefore, we should be allowed the maximum time for debate.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Rathbone: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way. I am under pressure of time. I know that my right hon. Friend wishes to begin his reply very shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington expressed mixed feelings about the motion. I believe that those feelings are shared by many hon. Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure me on the ground of striking a balance between getting the Government's legislation enacted and having a proper parliamentary debate. By reassuring me that that balance has been achieved he may reassure others, which may lead to converts on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I shall not follow directly the path outlined by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I shall take up briefly one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. Members for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) and Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). Like my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), I was bemused by the comments of the hon. Member for Petersfield. He did not appear in Committee often and when he was there he did not make many positive and telling contributions. His accusation that the Opposition—whether the official Opposition or not—were filibustering is not true and he knows it. The Leader of the House may wish to know that often it was only the presence of the official Opposition that provided a quorum.

Mr. Mates: Never. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: No. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I repeat that on a number of occasions members of the official Opposition provided a quorum while Conservative Members appeared in other Committee rooms along the Corridor.

Mr. Mates: rose—

Mr. Marshall: I hope that the hon. Member will sit down. The hon. Member for Wycombe referred to Opposition Members advancing certain points of view. I am sure that Ministers will appreciate that it is the role of Opposition Members sometimes to advance points of view with which perhaps they do not wholly agree. On occasions we have to act as spokesmen for outside pressure groups. For the hon. Gentleman of all people to condemn Opposition Members for taking that stance when he, together with the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons), has been a principal spokesman for the largest pressure group of all—namely, the Government of Hong Kong—is the height of hypocrisy. I wish that the hon. Member for Wycombe were in the Chamber to hear me charge him with hypocrisy.

Mr. Stanbrook: We shall tell him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An hon. Member cannot be hypocritical personally. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the assertion.

Mr. Marshall: I shall withdraw the remark if the hon. Gentleman cannot be hypocritical. I suggest that on occasions he has come close to being so in Committee. However, I withdraw the charge.
This is a major constitutional issue. It is the most important one that this Parliament is likely to face. I regret that the Government ignored the many pleas to debate the Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House. I am driven to the conclusion that one of the reasons why they wished the Bill to be considered in Standing Committee was that they thought that that would hide it from the public's gaze.
We are told after a few weeks in Committee that we shall have to have a guillotine motion even though the Leader of the House accepts that there has been no filibustering. We have sought in Committee to discuss the principles contained in the Bill and the fine detail.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Marshall: No. I have refused to give way to the hon. Member for Petersfield so I cannot give way to my hon. Friend.
The Government have been driven to table amendments to the Bill as a result of the Opposition's probing. However, they have not been prepared to lose face by accepting that the Opposition were responsible for highlighting the faults, even though we were. Once the faults were highlighted they amended the Bill. They were prepared to give the credit to Conservative Members. I can assure the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garet-Jones) that the more edgy he becomes while in his place the less likely he is to participate in the debate.
I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—namely, that the Government are up against a problem of their own making. They accepted that the Bill would be the principal feature of their legislation this year, but they left its Second Reading until the end of January. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that we should have had Second Reading very soon after the Queen's Speech in 1980.
The Government's problems are made worse by their desire to get away from the House of Commons early for the Summer Recess. I do not know whether they wish to go on holiday early or to attend the Royal Wedding, but, there is no doubt that their desire to be away from this place is making their difficulties worse.
Contrary to what has been said, the guillotine will fall at a time opportune to the Government. We are about to consider in Committee the racist core of the Bill—-British dependent territories citizenship and British overseas citizenship. When the guillotine falls it will enable the Government to curtail discussion.
Despite what Conservative Members have said, the proposed legislation would codify the 1962, 1968 and 1971 Immigration Acts. Perhaps the Government will take comfort from the fact that they are no longer likely to experience embarrassment in their dealings with foreign Governments and colonial Governments. However, they will further damage Britain's already tarnished reputation. The Government must have been overwhelmed by the barrage of criticism that the Bill has attracted from minority groups, from various denominations and from both foreign and colonial Governments.
After searching questions in Committee, we are infuriated by the Minister of State suggesting in many of his replies that there has been a lack of adequate consultation and discussion with foreign and colonial Governments. He said as late as Tuesday of this week that it is his hope—a pious hope—that no citizen of British dependent territories will actually be stateless. However, he cannot say categorically that that will not happen. He cannot say that every citizen of the British dependent territories will have the right of abode in a particular dependency.
I charge the Government with taking a high-handed and cavalier attitude to foreign Governments, especially to the Government of India. The Bill states that if a British overseas citizen is living in India and he and his wife have a child, the child will be an Indian citizen if it is born in India. The Indians have no say. The British Government are saying that if the British overseas citizen has a child in the United Kingdom, they are not prepared to extend the same courtesy to that child because they say that that child cannot become a British citizen.
The Minister of State shakes his head. I am talking, not about the British overseas citizen who is legally settled, but about a British overseas citizen who is living in this country, for whatever reason. The Minister of State has said that such a child would be a British overseas citizen. Therefore, they are treating British overseas citizens differently according to whether they live in India or in the United Kingdom.
The Bill is despicable. Rather than discussing the guillotine motion, the Minister should do the honourable thing and bring forward a motion to withdraw the Bill from further discussion in this Session and in this Parliament.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I thank the Leader of the House for his good wishes at the beginning of the debate. Almost in the same spirit, I believe that one thing—and one thing only—is to be said in favour of the motion: that it provides the Home Secretary with an opportunity to tell us clearly and unequivocally the purpose of the Bill which he intends to guillotine.
It may be regarded as strange that the Opposition should ask for a statement of a Bill's purpose some weeks after its Second Reading, but the intentions of the Bill influence our judgment about the propriety of its being timetabled. Our views about the intention of the Bill have been confused by events during the last few days.
On Second Reading—the last time the Home Secretary uttered on the subject—the right hon. Gentleman offered us the high explanation of what the Bill was intended to do. He called the Bill
the comprehensive and logical overhaul of our citizenship legislation that has so long been required".—[Official Report, 28 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 941.]
Allegations that it was nothing of the sort, that we were debating an immigration control Bill dressed up to look like a nationality Bill, were refuted by the Home Secretary and angrily refuted by the Minister of State.
I wonder whether the Home Secretary still offers the same denial of the interpretation of the Bill, which the Government seek to guillotine, which I put on its intentions when we debated it on 28 January, because on 17 April, in Delhi, the Prime Minister offered India, and through India, the world, a different explanation of the Bill which the Home Secretary now wishes to timetable. According to The Times of 18 April, she said that the British Nationality Bill was introduced because "immigrants are pouring in" in numbers which had to be restricted. She went on to say:
As a small country we cannot go on taking more and more people.
I fear that that does not respond to the high-minded advice of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) that we should all be cautious about the language we use when discussing race relations.
Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he endorses the Prime Minister's description of why the Bill is necessary? In particular, does he endorse the Prime Minister's statement that immigrants are pouring into this country? With the special responsibilities that he holds, the Home Secretary has a duty to tell the House and the country whether immigrants are pouring in and whether what the

Prime Minister regards as "pouring in" is the principal and chief justification for the Bill and the need to put it on the statute book in record time.
I hope that the Home Secretary will answer another question which directly affects the conduct and performance of the Prime Minister. For several weeks, it has been generally known that the Government intended to guillotine the Bill. The idea was floated in some newspapers five weeks ago. More than a fortnight ago, The Times, publishing one of those articles which has all the marks of being taken down at dictation speed from a public relations officer, described the agonies through which the Home Office was going in anticipation of the guillotine. The final decision to guillotine the Bill was announced on Monday, and that decision is being debated within 48 hours of that announcement.
Nothing has happened since the previous Business Statement made by the Leader of the House. When he made that statement, the Committee was meeting for only half a day, rather than a full day on the Opposition's suggestion. There have been no changes, no filibustering or suggestions that the Opposition were wasting time. All that has happened to justify a 48-hour announcement and the truncation and compression of the guillotine is that the Prime Minister has returned home from the Indian subcontinent. Clearly it was the Government's intention to guillotine the Bill some weeks ago, but they improperly withheld that announcement until the Prime Minister had returned to Britain and her face had been saved.
As a result, not only must we debate the guillotine within 48 hours of the announcement, but the final 37 clauses and seven schedules are to be debated in just over two weeks—in seven sitting days of the Committee—whereas the first 15 clauses and two schedules occupied the Committee for 37 sittings. Why has there been such a last-minute rush? If it has not been done to save the Prime Minister's face, I hope that the Home Secretary will give us a convincing alternative explanation.
To my certain knowledge the Government decided to complete the Committee, Report and Third Reading before the spring bank holiday recess. I have no doubt that they will achieve that aim and push their intentions through, with the assistance of their Whips, but they will do so at a terrible price in terms of proper discussion of the substantial parts of the Bill which remain.
The Committee has had 34 sittings so far. During those sittings, a number of important fundamental issues have been discussed. On Monday, the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) told the House that he thought that the Committee had already dealt with all the matters of major complication. He was wrong. It is not the only error of judgment that the hon. and learned Member has made during the last few months, but it is the only one that it is proper for me to discuss now.
A number of important matters have been discussed. I shall turn to how they affected the progress of the Bill in a moment. When I heard the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) suggesting that perhaps less controversial and less important issues lay ahead, I think I saw the Minister of State indicating dissent and implying—if he was, I agree with him wholeheartedly—that in the days which remain the Committee has to deal with matters of fundamental importance. I shall give only two examples of issues which are outstanding, but I could give many more. There are 17


major issues which we must still discuss, but I offer the House only two examples, both of which are of fundamental importance.
The first example is the entire concept of British overseas citizenship—a new status which the Opposition and almost everyone who has commented on it, apart from official Government sources, regard as a status which offers virtually no right to the unfortunate men and women who are allocated that status. That is a matter of major controversy and must now be debated under the threat of the guillotine.
Secondly, we must debate clause 41, which I shall describe as succinctly as I can by reading from the Bill. Clause 41 provides that the Secretary of State, who determines applications for registration and naturalisation,
shall not be required to assign any reason for the grant or refusal of any application … at his discretion".
Clause 41 is the absolute, arbitrary right of the Secretary of State to grant or refuse applications for British citizenship. It is the absolution of the Secretary of State for justifying why he refuses or grants such applications. It is no wonder that the The Daily Telegraph, which does not always agree with my views on race and community relations and immigration, described the clause as
being without any known precedent in British statute.

Mr. Raison: It is not without precedent. It is taken from the 1948 Act.

Mr. Hattersley: The Daily Telegraph normally agrees with the Minister of State's views and no doubt it will accept his reproof. Precedented or not, I hope that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will not suggest that a power as arbitrary or as unqualified as that is a suitable subject to be discussed under the pressure of a guillotine.
I intended to give only two examples, but the Minister of State has provoked me to give a third. Appeals relating to all parts of the Bill must still be debated. In Committee last night I said that we should want to return to that aspect again. Another outstanding issue is whether there is a check on the Secretary of State's behaviour. That is of fundamental and primary constitutional importance. It is intolerable that that should be debated under a guillotine.
Only the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) has suggested that progress has been held up by the Opposition's concious and wilful obstruction. The Leader of the House was careful to avoid making such a charge. I recall only one speech which obviously and unashamedly wasted time. That was the speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) late at night on 9 April.

Mr. Marlow: Was the right hon. Gentleman there?

Mr. Hattersley: Yes, although my propensity to go out of the House and make public speeches on Thursday evenings is undiminished. I shall continue to make such speeches.

Mr. Mates: The speech to which the right hon. Gentleman referred lasted for 20 minutes. It followed the speech, about which I complained, by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) which lasted for one and a quarter hours. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was wasting time, but that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central was not?

Mr. Hattersley: A speech is best judged not by its length but by its content. I invite hon. Members to read

in Hansard the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and the exchanges with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Every objective reader will agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West that at that time Tory Back Benchers knew that the guillotine was to be introduced and decided to have a little late night fun to justify what was to happen.
A second piece of evidence confirms the view that, although long speeches have been made, they have not been irrelevant. In the 34 sittings of the Committee the closure was moved only three times. Even allowing for the eccentric way in which the Committee has been Whipped by the Government, the fact that only one closure was moved every 10 sittings suggests that the Government could not sustain the case that time was being wasted.
Many of our debates were long, but that does not mean that they were unreasonably long. When the House recalls the subjects that we discussed, it will not be surprised that we took time to examine them. For example, we decided in Committee, against the wishes and votes of Labour Members, that the British Government should abandon, for the first time in their history, the absolute and automatic right of every child born in the United Kingdom to be a United Kingdom citizen. It would have been extraordinary if that provision had not been debated at great length. It was so debated, and rightly.
The Government have introduced a Bill which is highly controversial and complicated. A Bill with two such elements places on the Government a special obligation to ensure that adequate time is provided for its detailed and careful discussion. However, the Government have not provided that time.
The Government have two reasons for not providing the time. First, the Bill was introduced too late in the Session. The Government have had two years to prepare the Bill. They claim, wrongly, that the Bill was preceded by a Green Paper. If that were true, the Government should have been able to proceed quickly. A White Paper was produced, but there was still delay.
The Government's business managers are incompetent. It is not for me to allocate blame between the present Leader of the House and his predecessor. However, the Bill should have been introduced in November last year.
The second problem which has bedevilled our considerations is the Minister's intransigence. Progress is made with a Bill when Government representatives make whatever concessions they can on minor issues. With two exceptions, when the Minister of State had already been told that he could not command the support of his Back Benchers, no concessions were made on even the most minor matter.
Time does not allow me to cite examples, but I invite the House to read the Hansard report of the Committee late last night when we pleaded with the Minister of State to make a minor concession on the nationality of illegitimate children born in a certain category of citizenship whose putative fathers claimed parentage and were British citizens. An infinitesimal number of children would be covered by such a provision. The Opposition asked the Government to accept an amendment out of compassion. However, the Minister of State reacted as always, rigidly and with mulish obstinacy. Had the Minister of State been


prepared to be more sympathetic to the minor proposals, quicker progress could have been made. As it is, we must face the guillotine.
The main problem caused by the guillotine will not be the inconvenience to hon. Members, the cutting short of debate or the inadequate discussion which is bound to follow from only seven days remaining. The main problem that will flow from the Government's decision will be a further feeling among the ethnic minorities that their interests are not being properly represented and that the Government have little or no concern for what they believe to be right. Almost all that the Government have done in their two years in office for community and race relations and immigration is to suggest that immigrants and the children and grandchildren of immigrants born here are in some way a problem and liability.
By introducing the Bill and by supporting it with the wild and intemperate language that the Prime Minister has used, the Government have hardened the feeling that they regard immigrants and the ethnic minorities as a problem. By introducing the Bill in this arbitrary way and by pushing it through under a guillotine, the Government have made that feeling desperately worse. For that reason, if for no other, we shall vote against the guillotine motion.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I start by referring to important points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), since one of them affected my personal decision. I believe that it is in the correct traditions of the House to do so. I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about my decision. Of course I considered the various options, and I owe it to him, to the House and to the Committee to explain why I took the decision that I did. He may think that I was wrong, but I had to take the decision.
I do not think that anyone in the House could doubt that the pressures of being Home Secretary have mounted over recent years. They are today very great indeed. The pressures on me in the Home Office, and in the Government as a whole mean that if I had taken the decision to be a member of the Standing Committee I would inevitably have had to absent myself from it. Therefore, I would have taken a place on the Committee, only frequently not to be there. I am sure that with his knowledge the right hon. Gentleman will accept that that was a risk that I would have taken had I gone on to the Committee. For that reason I decided that it was right to give the job to the Minister of State, who was able to devote himself wholly to it and in whom I and all my hon. Friends have the utmost confidence. That was my decision. The right hon. Gentleman may say that it was wrong, but I maintain that if I am to do my job in the Government and through Parliament for the country as a whole I have to make decisions on priorities. I believe that it is impossible to run a major Government Department like the Home Office in any other way. That was why I made the decision.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having met the point head on. I am sure that he and the House realise the importance of the declaration that he has made. He has not made it only in the context

of this Bill, but it is a downgrading of the responsibilities of Ministers for major legislation that they put before the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: I did not in any way imply that. I simply implied that if I had gone on the Committee and then had to absent myself that would not have been a sound decision. The precedent is there, and it has been used by many of my predecessors, from all parties, on major Bills, as the right hon. Gentleman will know.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the Bill was introduced only in January—a point that was raised also by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons). I accept that it would have been much better had the Bill been introduced before Christmas, but there were reasons, including complicated discussions with overseas territories, which in the end made that impossible. The right hon. Member for Down, South will be the first to accept that over the period that he and I have been in the House—a very considerable period—many Bills of a major order have been introduced in January and passed through before the end of the Session. It would be hopeless for Parliament if it were not possible to do that.
On another matter the right hon. Member for Down, South contradicted himself. He believed that there was a general understanding, which he shared, about the progress of the Bill on the most important issues, and that it would come out of Committee at Whitsun. If the Bill could have come out of Committee at Whitsun, had the full discussion on Report and been able to go to the House of Lords, it could have been passed in this Session. The right hon. Gentleman says there was a general understanding that should have been possible.
If I understood what was said a short time ago, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook took exactly the opposite view. He said that it would not have been possible to get it out of Committee by Whitsun. I believe that it should have been possible, but the right hon. Gentleman, out of his own mouth, has conceded the case that I am making. The right hon. Member for Down, South feels that it would have been possible; the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says that it would not. If the Bill was to be got through in this Session, it would have had to come out of the Committee at Whitsun.
I come to other points that were made on procedure. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) made an extraordinary point when he said that there was something in the guillotine motion to do with the House rising somewhat earlier than usual for the Summer Recess. I do not know when it is proposed that the House should rise, but it is immaterial to the progress of this Bill, because by that time it will be in another place. Therefore, the date on which the House will rise has no effect on the guillotine motion. That must be the most obvious point that can be made.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman has just said a very strange thing, namely, that by the end of July the Bill will be in another place. Does he think that we shall return here in October to finish the Bill in this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was merely replying in the first instance to the point that was made that something to do with the Bill, which would be in another place at that


stage, was involved in when the House would rise for the Summer Recess. I cannot see that that point can be sustained.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the decision on when this guillotine motion should be tabled and moved. It would be wrong of me, and totally against everything that I have done in the House over a long period, to disclose private conversations. I do not intend to do so, but I am bound to say that I had made it abundantly clear on many occasions that I hoped that the Committee stage could finish by Whitsun and that I did not want to introduce a guillotine motion. I had hoped, up to the last, that it would be possible to avoid it.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will know, we did not take the decision until it became clear that we had to do so. We decided during the recess that it was right to take this step. The recess lasted for 10 days, and whether the decision was on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, that is a silly point to make. I said that I decided on this during the recess. Surely my right hon. Friends and I are entitled to decide something during the recess. I hope that that disposes of the matter.
I come now to the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and other hon. Members. There will be adequate time for discussions on many of the important issues. With three days for the Report stage, which is a generous allocation, there will be plenty of time for those hon. Members who are not on the Committee to make their points. I accept the problems that inevitably arise because of the need to get Bills through the House in one Session, but I maintain that the amount of time, totalling over 100 hours in Committee and three full days on Report, is reasonable to discuss the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said that it would be better to bring the Bill back later. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to criticise the delay. For Labour Members to talk about delay on this issue is the most appalling hypocrisy. I agree with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that for a long time we have built up the problem for ourselves because we were not prepared to introduce a new Nationality Bill.
In 1974 the Labour Party said that it was going to introduce such a measure. By 1979 it had issued a Green Paper, but since then the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seems to have been busy repudiating large sections of that Green Paper, just as he has repudiated his vote on the 1968 Act, which was one of the Acts that made a Nationality Bill all the more important.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, a revision of our nationality legislation is long overdue. We have created anomalies over the years by passing the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act and the 1968 Act. In no way do I wish to go back on my vote either in favour of the 1962 Act or in favour of the 1968 Act, both of which were justified. I am always amazed to hear people try to pretend that they wish to go back on the 1962 Act. The Labour Party had every opportunity to repeal that Act, as it promised to do, but it never did. Those who criticise the 1968 Act must remember that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that that measure was crucial in the situation in which we found ourselves.
I believe that that was right, and my party in Opposition supported that Bill, which was the responsibility of the

Government of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a member. He has decided to repudiate it now. That is his business, but as time was available for the Labour Government to introduce a nationality Bill, the Opposition have no excuse for saying now that the Government are delaying. We have promised to fulfil the undertaking to do something that is vital to the future of the country. This is an extremely complicated measure. I know very well why the Labour Government did not introduce a Bill of this kind. It was because it was too complicated and raised too many difficulties for them, so they ran away from it. It is no use members of the previous Labour Government talking to me about delays and failures.
Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches cannot have it both ways. At one moment the right hon. Member for Deptford says that the Bill is so ill-thought through that amendments had to be moved by the Government, and the next moment the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for York accuse my hon. Friend the Minister of State of being intransigent and refusing to accept any amendments. We said at the time that we introduced the Bill that we would adopt a constructive approach to the Committee stage. I promised that to the right hon. Member for Down, South, amongst others. I claim that we have fulfilled that promise.
The hon. Member for York was fair enough to say that one of the amendments moved by the Government had removed the tag of racist that some people had quite wrongly put on the Bill. I was glad to hear him say it. I thank the hon. Member for that, an I hope that many other Labour Members will stop wrongly claiming that the Bill is racist and sexist when they know perfectly well that it is not.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary will deal with the first question I asked him, will he not? I asked whether the Prime Minister was right to say that the Bill was the result of immigrants pouring into the country.

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said all along about the purpose of the Bill.—[Interruption] Would the right hon. Gentleman mind containing himself and his arms?
I want to make it clear why I believe that the Bill is essential and to explain its purpose. I have made it clear that the purpose of the Bill, which is widely accepted in the House and in the country, is to create a British citizenship based on the principle that citizenship should carry with it the right of abode in this country. I believe that the new citizenship will benefit the whole community. The vast majority of the ethnic minorities in this country will become British citizens and they will share in the benefit that that brings. The citizenship will provide a clear and unequivocal indication of those who belong to this country and are part of it. That is an enormously important principle.
I believe that the Bill will end many of the uncertainties and anxieties that have often harmed race relations in this country in the past, and I accept again what the hon. Member for York said on that matter. I believe that the Bill is long overdue. For a long time we have needed a reform of our nationality law. I believe that the Bill will be seen to be fair.
It is certainly not racist, and it is certainly not sexist. What is more, we are providing now, after over 100 hours


on the earlier provisions, enough time to debate the other issues perfectly fairly, and the Opposition know it. We are providing further time on Report. I recommend—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 240.

Division No. 162]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Alison, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Asp in wall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Elliott, Sir William


Banks, Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bendall, Vivian
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Farr, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fell, Anthony


Best, Keith
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Blackburn, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Blaker, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Body, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bowden, Andrew
Fry, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brinton, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip


Brotherton, Michael
Goodhew, Victor


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorst, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gow, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Greenway, Harry


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Grylls, Michael


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gummer, John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, W. S.
Hastings, Stephen


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle, John


Cockeram, Eric
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Hicks, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Corrie, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Costain, Sir Albert
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hooson, Tom


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hordern, Peter


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dover, Denshore
Hunt, David (Wirral)





Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pink, R. Bonner


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Porter, Barry


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Latham, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lee, John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Loveridge, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Luce, Richard
Scott, Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shepherd, Richard


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Silvester, Fred


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sims, Roger


McQuarrie, Albert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Madel, David
Smith, Dudley


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Marland, Paul
Speller, Tony


Marlow, Tony
Spence, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Mather, Carol
Squire, Robin


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawby, Ray
Stanley, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Patrick
Stevens, Martin


Mellor, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, b.(E Renfrewshire)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stokes, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Tapsell, Peter


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morgan, Geraint
Thompson, Donald


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thome, Neil (Ilford South)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mudd, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Murphy, Christopher
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Myles, David
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Nott, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, B. (Perth)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Cecil
Walters, Dennis


Parris, Matthew
Watson, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Raymond






Wickenden, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wiggin, Jerry



Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Wolfson, Mark



Young, Sir George (Acton)





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Alton, David
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Freud, Clement


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
George, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Graham, Ted


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bottomley, Rt Hon K(M'b'ro)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bradley, Tom
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell, Ian
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Canavan, Dennis
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cant, R. B.
Home Robertson, John


Carmichael, Neil
Homewood, William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Hon Greville


Crowther, J. S.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David


Dixon, Donald
Lamborn, Harry


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ronald


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dubs, Alfred
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Eastham, Ken
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
McCartney, Hugh


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McKelvey, William


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Ewing, Harry
McNally, Thomas


Faulds, Andrew
McTaggart, Robert


Field, Frank
McWilliam, John


Fitch, Alan
Magee, Bryan


Fitt, Gerard
Marks, Kenneth


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)





Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Short, Mrs Renée


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silverman, Julius


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Maynard, Miss Joan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Snape, Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Soley, Clive


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Molyneaux, James
Stallard, A. W.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Stoddart, David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Morton, George
Straw, Jack


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


O'Neill, Martin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Palmer, Arthur
Tilley, John


Parker, John
Tinn, James


Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Pavitt, Laurie
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Pendry, Tom
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Prescott, John
Watkins, David


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Weetch, Ken


Race, Reg
Welsh, Michael


Radice, Giles
White, Frank R.


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Richardson, Jo
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Rooker, J. W.
Winnick, David


Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wright, Sheila


Ross, Wm, (Londonderry)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rowlands, Ted



Ryman, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Sever, John
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Donald Coleman.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Question agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 14th day of May 1981.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 14th May may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on the 15th May 1981.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and New Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the British Nationality Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is summed up in its title—Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions). It is a measure to regulate mining on the bed of the deep seas, far out in the oceans of the world. On the sea bed exist valuable hard mineral resources known as manganese or polymetallic nodules. United Kingdom companies, among others, are interested in mining them. The Bill provides a statutory framework for the development of that nascent industry.
The Bill is also described as a temporary provisions measure because it is an interim provision pending agreement on an international regime. The third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea has for several years been working towards international agreement on this matter. When, as we hope, a satisfactory agreement is reached and enters into force, the international arrangements will supersede the national provisions set out in the Bill.
The Government are keen to improve the security and availability of future supplies of raw materials for British industry. The vast bulk—about 90 per cent.—of our consumption of non-energy industrial raw materials is imported. The United Kingdom is heavily dependent on a small number of countries for supplies of some minerals which are critical raw materials for our manufacturing industry. Our industrial prosperity is dependent on assured supplies of key raw materials at stable prices, and supplies of nickel, cobalt, copper and possibly managanese from the sea bed are a welcome prospect.
Moreover, the prospect of vigorous participation in the new industrial activity of sea bed mining by British companies promises an exciting new economic opportunity to benefit both the companies and the British economy.
Perhaps I should explain what and where the mineral-bearing nodules are. Although no scientist, I should like to have been able to explain how and why, but it appears that answers to those questions are less easy to come by. The nodules that give rise to so much current interest and activity are technically described as concretions of a number of elements. They are sometimes described as being like charred potatoes and I saw one for the first time today. Like potatoes, they vary in size and where they occur they carpet the sea bed in a single layer.
We do not fully understand how and why the nodules form, but it is clear that they require the undisturbed conditions that are found only in areas of the deepest ocean. Although nodules have been found in various parts of the world's oceans, it is only in the north Pacific that the deposits appear rich enough to justify pioneering commercial mining operations. The prime area of interest lies in the Clarion-Clipperton zone between Hawaii and California, which is in an area of about 3 million square kilometres far away from any land and where the sea is about 5,000 metres deep.
The major deposits of nodules are located far out at sea, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. They are, therefore, resources of the high seas and, in accordance with the doctrine of the high seas, any country has the freedom to recover them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The brief from the Institute of Geology gave the impression that there were possibilities of viable exploitation in the Indian Ocean and not only in the north Pacific. Is it the Government's view that exploitation is possible only in the north Pacific?

Mr. MacGregor: The view expressed to me to date, particularly by companies engaged in the initial prospecting, is that interest lies in the Pacific area.
In view of the potential economic importance of the resources, there has been much international interest in and concern about their exploitation. In 1969 and 1970 that concern was formalised in two resolutions of the United Nations. The first sought to impose a moratorium on deep sea mining until international arrangements come into force. The second was a declaration of principles that the sea bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and its resources were the common heritage of mankind.
Such resolutions are not international law; they are merely exhortatory. However, we have taken them carefully into account in formulating our national nsmeasures in the Bill. In the light of those resolutions, the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was convened in 1973 to negotiate an international system of regulations for sea bed mining. The conference has been meeting regularly since then and has made significant progress in developing an international regime that implements the principle of the common heritage of mankind, while providing a framework for commercial mining operations.
There is a draft convention containing complex provisions for operations both by private companies and by an international sea bed authority acting on behalf of mankind as a whole. It had been hoped that the final details of the package would be sorted out this year, but that timetable has slipped. Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that there will soon be a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations.
Hon. Members will be aware of the press coverage of the UNLOSC negotiations in New York in March and April this year. The decision by the United States Administration to carry out a full-scale review of their policy towards the law of the sea and meanwhile to play no active role in the negotiations has obviously been a setback, albeit temporary, to the conference. It has certainly not improved the prospects for an early agreement on a generally acceptable convention text.
Nevertheless, we remain of the view that it is important to have a generally acceptable international basis for sea bed mining to give the industry a secure future, and we hope that the United States review will be concluded as quickly as possible and will not diminish the prospects of obtaining agreement to an international convention.
If nothing else, the present circumstances illustrate clearly the sort of uncertainties that may continue to face Governments and mining companies until an international convention has been agreed comes into force. It is because of those uncertainties that this interim measure is needed to give our mining industry a firm basis for continued activity, pending the entry into force of an international agreement.
Hon. Members may wonder why we need a national measure for deep sea mining at this stage, given that so much effort has already been devoted to working out an international system of regulations.
The answer to that question is fourfold. The first—I understand from noises on the Opposition Benches that there is great interest in this aspect of the problem—is the position within UNLOSC. Even if the lengthy negotiations are concluded this year—or, more likely, next year—it will be several years before an agreed convention comes into force. There is to be a preparatory commission to draw up detailed rules and regulations and to organise the setting up of the international authority, and that work alone may take a few years.
It will also take some time for the required number of States to ratify the convention. The present negotiating text requires 60 States to ratify the convention to bring it into force. Therefore, we are considering a system which, in practice, could not become operative, even in favourable circumstances, before the mid- to late-1980s.
That ties in with the second important aspect. The inevitable delay and uncertainty in the international arrangements leave the developing deep sea mining industry in a difficult position. The industry is newly formed and has to carry out much development work before it will be ready to embark on commercial operations. Expenditure of up to £100 million per project is needed for the next stage and the mining companies are not prepared to invest such sums without a stable, or reasonably stable legal framework in which to operate.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a temporary measure passed by this House will give companies that long-term stability?

Mr. MacGregor: I will discuss later the hon. Gentleman's reference to a measure passed by this House, with its implication that measures are being passed by this House alone. The Bill will undoubtedly give companies a better basis, and a reasonably stable basis, than they would have without the Bill, especially if other actions elsewhere were not carried out.
If the mining companies allow their programmes to run down because they have no assurances, it will take many years to build them up again. To go ahead, the companies need certain assurances. I come to part of the answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, (Mr. Craigen). Given the political and legal uncertainties at the international level, the companies have turned to their respective Governments for assurances.
I recognise that national measures can provide only partial assurances and are clearly no substitute for an internationally agreed regime. However, national measures can help to maintain the momentum of the deep sea mining industry so that it may be able to participate fully when the international position is clarified. It is in the interests of providing support and encouragement for the industry, specifically the United Kingdom companies that are involved, that we have introduced the Bill.
The third reason for legislation now is that the companies, including British companies, that have been pioneering the development of sea bed mining have already expended considerable efforts on prospecting large

areas of the ocean floor. They wish to secure claims to potential areas that they have already identified as worthy of further exploration.
The fourth factor relevant to the timing of the measure has been the progress made in other countries. I said that I would return to this matter. The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany enacted domestic deep sea mining legislation last year—in fact, before the new American Administration was elected—and we introduced the Bill in another place before that event. The United States and the Federal Republic of Germany will be accepting applications for exploration licences within a few months.
Our mining companies have sought similar opportunities and cannot afford to be left behind in this important new industry. What is more, other countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Italy and Belgium, plan to introduce legislation in support of their companies' interests. Their legislation is in prospect, or in the preparatory stages. So United Kingdom companies need equivalent support now.
Having set out the background against which the Bill is set, I shall now review some of its salient features.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is there not real urgency here? Do I understand correctly that the United States will be issuing licences on 1 January 1982 and that therefore we must be in step with them, or most of the consortia will go through American legislation rather than through the United Kingdom legislation? Is it not important that we pursue the matter on time?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot confirm without checking the exact date that my hon. Friend gave, although it will be within a few months, as I said earlier. My hon. Friend's second comment about where the consortia might otherwise go is a material one.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister mentioned the French and the Belgians. My understanding is that they have in mind not the north Pacific, but other areas of the ocean. Is that not so?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that question is particularly relevant to the introduction of general legislation which is designed to cover all areas, as defined in the Bill, of the deep sea bed. Where prospecting will take place is not relevant.
Clause 1 prohibits United Kingdom nationals from exploring for or recovering the mineral resources on the deep sea bed without a licence. At present, those activities may be carried out as part of the freedom of the high seas, but our mining companies are unwilling to invest further vast sums of money without more specific legal arrangements. The clause contained definitions of the key terms "deep sea bed" and "hard mineral resources". "Deep sea bed" is defined as any
part of the bed of the high seas in respect of which sovereign rights in relation to the natural resources of the sea bed are neither exercisable by the United Kingdom nor recognised by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom as being exercisable by any other Sovereign Power".
In practice, that means areas beyond the recognised continental shelf of any State, areas which are many miles from anywhere.
There may, of course, be disputed claims about the sovereign rights to certain areas, and in such cases the areas will be regarded as part of the deep sea bed for the


purposes of this Bill so long as her Majesty's Government do not recognise either of the claims. The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State may issue a certificate resolving questions on the definition of the deep sea bed.
"Hard mineral resources" are defined as deposits of nodules that contain significant quantities of manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper, phosphorus or molybdenum. In practice, a mixture of these and other elements and compounds is found together, but these are the key ingredients—the ones that make commercial recovery worthwhile. Current plans for commercial operations concentrate particularly on the production of copper, nickel and cobalt, with manganese as an optional fourth product, depending on the state of the market.
Clause 2 outlines the licensing arrangements for exploration and exploitation. The Secretary of State is empowered to grant licences to fit and proper applicants, although he must take account of any relevant factors, including the need to set aside no-go areas to provide a sound basis for scientific assessment of the environmental impact of mining operations. The form of applications and the evidence to be supplied will be specified in regulations, but in general applicants for an exploration licence will need to supply evidence of their expertise in this highly technological field.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister mentioned the scientific aspects. I do not expect him to answer my question off the cuff, but it would be useful if it could be answered in the winding-up speech. Can we be given a clear idea of what the scientific criteria will be for this impact?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has heard the hon. Gentleman's question, and I am sure that if he can he will answer it when he winds up.
I was talking about clause 2. Applicants for exploitation licences will also need to supply data and records of exploration activities and evidence of their financial capability to fund the operation.
Licences will give authority for either exploration or exploitation in a specified area of the deep sea bed. Exploration is defined in clause 17, which deliberately distinguishes exploration from the general prospecting that is a necessary preliminary to any deep sea mining project. Prospecting is not specific to any one site and can be freely carried out without impinging on the activities of others. It is not, therefore, subject to prohibition or licensing. Exploration, however, covers all the activities that an operator must carry out on his chosen site before going into commercial production.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Which resources are available to Her Majesty's Government to administer such a complicated operation as vetting exploitation and/or exploration far away from land and in remote areas of the world?

Mr. MacGregor: I take the point, and I wish that I could reply to it now. If the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, it can be pursued in Committee.
Exploitation licences cover the period of commercial production on a specific mine site—that is, when the operation is of a sufficient scale to be economically viable.
This Bill is not intended to—nor will it—impinge on the carrying out of marine scientific research. Since only exploration and exploitation are prohibited by the Bill,

unless licensed, there is no call for any reference on the face of the Bill to marine scientific research. The Bill will simply not impinge on such activities.
The period of licences will be set long enough to meet the needs of the mining industry. Although a decision has not yet been taken, I expect that an exploration licence will run initially for 10 years, but may be extended for further periods of up to five years, if appropriate.

Mr. Dalyell: I cannot understand the statement that the Bill will not impinge on scientific research. It may or may not do so, but how can the Minister say that it will not impinge?

Mr. MacGregor: A distinction can be drawn between the exploration that goes on in connection with deep sea mining and the actual terms of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that this deep sea mining is already taking place. I confess that I am not a scientist, but the scientific evidence on this subject is at a very early stage, and, presumably, much remains to be learnt as time passes. That will be part of the process that is envisaged in the Bill and in others and, ultimately, in the international convention. But there is no need to cover marine scientific research as such in the Bill in relation to licensing under clauses 2 and 17. That could still take place, irrespective of the Bill.
I was discussing the periods of licences. I expect that exploration licences will run initially for 10 years but may be extended for further periods of up to five years, if appropriate. An exploitation licence may be granted for 20 years to cover the useful productive life of a single site.
Licences will contain a number of terms and conditions which the licensee must adhere to, or risk the revocation of his licence, in accordance with clause 6. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will consider that important. These conditions will include matters such as requirements to supply the Secretary of State with information about the licensed operations, restrictions on disposing of waste and a requirement to pay an annual fee to cover the costs of administering the licensing scheme.
The timing of the licences will be subject to two conditions. Exploration licences may not be issued before 1 July 1981, and exploitation licences may not take effect before 1 January 1988, so as to allow reasonable time for the international convention which is now being negotiated at the law of the sea conference to come into force. If progress at the conference goes smoothly, as we all hope it will, we can expect this legislation to be superseded by the international regime before there is any commercial production from the sea bed. If not, the companies have an assurance that, if they wish, they may proceed under this legislation as from 1988.

Mr. Craigen: Will this legislation facilitate international agreement?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not see how this legislation as such will hinder it. The opportunity to continue to develop in this area will be helped by the Bill. If and when the convention comes into force, exploration and so on will have taken place, experience of the whole process will have been gained, and at that stage we should be in a much better position to move on into the full force of the international convention. I shall refer later to several other points on that aspect that are contained in the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: My friend and constituent, Lord Ritchie-Calder and, I know Mr. Peter Warren of the Institute of


Geologists, fear that this could sour the whole thing. I believe that that is likely. If we go sailing ahead, is there not a prime facie case to suggest that things will not be smooth?

Mr. MacGregor: I read the noble Lord's speech, and I thought the satisfactory responses to his general points were made in another place. It is extremely unlikely that what he fears will take place. A more important consideration is that if a considerable time is taken to reach agreement on the convention and to move on to the stages that I described earlier, there will be a long delay during which the mining companies will be uncertain and will probably not invest the large extra sums involved. The ultimate loss will be to mankind in general. These processes are essentially seen as a transition towards the time when the convention comes into force.

Mr. Skeet: Does not my hon. Friend agree that when the United States legislation was passed in 1980, the succeeding part of the conference was extremely profitable and it seemed to accept that legislation as a useful interim measure?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is quite right. The delays which have taken place since then have nothing to do with that legislation, because it was introduced before the new United States Administration were elected.
Clause 3 provides for taking account of the licences and other authorisations for deep sea mining which may be granted by other States which pass legislation corresponding to the Bill. This arrangement will enhance the rights that attach to any licence issued by the United Kingdom, as it will lead to recognition by other States. That is part of the partial assurances which will help the United Kingdom mining companies. If the laws of those States are similar in aim and effect to our own, they may be designated reciprocating countries.
In effect, that means that anyone operating under an authorisation granted by a reciprocating country will not be subject to the prohibition in the Bill, and the Secretary of State will not be able to grant a licence to anyone else for a site already covered by a reciprocating authorisation.
More broadly, recognising other countries with similar aims and standards will effectively contribute to the orderly development of the industry and to properly controlled and co-ordinated exploitation of sea bed resources.

Mr. Dalyell: Co-ordinated by whom?

Mr. MacGregor: Co-ordinated by those who at that stage are involved in the whole process. Damaging conflict will be avoided if reciprocating countries agree mechanisms for resolving overlapping licence applications and if they adopt similar standards for operations. This clause lays the foundation for reaching beneficial agreements of this kind.

Mr. Peter Archer: The Minister has been patient in giving way. However, it may shorten the debate if he relieves our anxieties on this point. What kind of mechanisms do the Government have in mind for ensuring that Britain and other countries do not simultaneously grant licences in respect of the same areas? Will the ocean be divided into spheres of influence, or how will it be done?

Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps I can respond to that point in a moment.
Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 make provision on preventing interference with licensed operations, protecting the marine environment, varying and revoking licences, and the freedom of the high seas. All are necessary supplementary provisions. The provisions made in clause 5 for protecting marine creatures and plants and their habitat are worthy of attention. Although there is no evidence to date that exploration activities disturb the marine environment, we cannot yet know the full effects of the new mining techniques. This clause is, therefore, supplemented by the power to make regulations under clause 12 preventing mining methods that may be harmful to the marine environment. Other conditions thought necessary for the protection of marine life may be included in licences as appropriate.
Clause 8 is an unusual provision but necessary. It gives the Government the power to take countervailing measures against another State that discriminates against United Kingdom registered ships in connection with deep sea mining. United States legislation includes a provision restricting United States licensed explorers and miners in their use of foreign vessels. This is clearly against the interests of our shipping industry, and the United Kingdom may wish to retaliate against such protectionist policies. If it is decided to make use of this provision, full account will of course be taken of the commercial interest of the mining companies and the terms of any existing contracts.
Clauses 9 and 10 make provision for collecting a levy on sea bed mineral production, keeping it in a trust fund and paying it over to the international authority that will be established when the law of the sea convention comes into force. Therefore, hon. Members will recognise that here too there are transitional arrangements towards that ultimate stage if and when it comes. It reflects the principle that everyone should benefit from the mineral wealth of the sea bed and anticipates the provisions of the international convention. Similar arrangements are contained in the corresponding American and German deep sea mining laws, and are evidence of good faith in the international negotiations.
In practice these clauses will not become operational until commercial production begins, which cannot be before 1988 in accordance with the provisions of clause 2. By then, we hope an international treaty will be in force. Wherever practicable, the details of the levy and the fund are left to be prescribed in regulations which may be made nearer the time that the levy will be operational. The fund into which the levy is paid is to be managed by the Treasury and, subject to Treasury instructions, invested by the National Debt Commissioners.
In case there is no agreement to an international regime, provision is made to cease collection of the levy and to wind up the fund. At this stage it is not realistic to forecast what might best be done with the money in such circumstances—we hope the situation will not occur. Any decision can best be taken at the relevant time, and the Bill simply provides for the money to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 covering inspection, regulations and safeguarding confidential information are self-explanatory. Examples of the matters that may be covered by regulations under clause 12 are listed in the schedule.
It may be helpful for me to comment on clause 16. This exempts activities carried out under this Bill from the


provisions of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. This provision does not in any way reduce the standards to be imposed on dumping from deep sea mining operations. Conditions on dumping as on other matters, will be included in licences issued under the Bill. This provision simply means that dumping will be controlled in the context of the overall work programme that is licensed. It eliminates any difficulties that might otherwise arise through overlapping jurisdiction in this matter.
I hope that what I have said makes it clear to the House that the fundamental objective of the Bill is to provide a temporary statutory framework within which our mining companies can continue their valuable development work in this new industry. It anticipates the entry into force of a satisfactory international regime which we are determined to achieve if it can possibly be done within a reasonable period.
Perhaps I may add that if on one or two points I have not been able to give a sufficiently full reply, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will deal with them when he winds up the debate.
In the interests of continued United Kingdom participation in deep sea mining and the orderly development of the industry, I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Opposition have the deepest misgivings about the timing and content of the Bill. The Minister's speech has left more questions than it has answered.
The Bill comes after seven years of United Nations Law of the Sea Conference delegates' work—slowly, admittedly, but with thoroughness and considerable success—towards international agreement on wide-ranging international controls on maritime and marine activities. Let us remind ourselves that those activities take place over two-thirds of the world's surface. Successive British Governments, Conservative and Labour, have participated in those negotiations with the expressed commitment of achieving agreement on a new and comprehensive international regime—as, until recently, have successive American Administrations.
As the Minister said, those proposals and discussions took as their starting point the agreed principle that the oceans of the world are part of the common heritage of mankind and should therefore be controlled and managed and, if necessary, exploited only from that common standpoint. There were, and are, many important reasons why that view should prevail and endure. The Opposition believe it to be in the best interests of all nations, including our own. We therefore adhere to that position.
I remind the House that the draft treaty, almost finalised, covers territorial seas and contiguous zones, straights, archipelagic States, exclusive economic zones, continental shelves, high seas navigation, fisheries and conservation, the regime for islands, enclosed seas, rights of access of land-locked States, protection and preservation of the marine environment and scientific research, development and transfer of marine technology, a disputes procedure and deep sea mining outside national jurisdiction. That is what is involved in the treaty, and that is what is at stake if it is not ratified.
The implications of reaching, or indeed of failing to reach, such an agreement should be obvious to us all. Until March of this year success seemed at least to be in sight.

In March, however, the Reagan Administration, following the President's inauguration, announced that they were withdrawing their delegates from participation and that they would have a complete and fundamental rethink about what was involved. They did not have the courtesy to do that through diplomatic channels but simply announced it rather offensively in a press statement. That is the reality of what happened. Anyone who thinks that that is conducive to further rapid progress on the treaty is deluding himself.
That decision has been widely criticised within the United States by Elliot Richardson, who had been in charge of the American negotiating team. It has been criticised in the Third World by the Group of 77, which now embraces between 130 and 140 countries. It has been widely critised in this country in leading articles in many newspapers and scientific and technical journals. Seven years' work has been placed in jeopardy. It is no wonder that the delegates to the United Nations conference are in a bitter and angry mood.
It is worth paying a little attention to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at what has taken place. A leading article in The Times on 10 March concluded that instead of agreement
there would be the threat of maritime lawlessness, with countries reverting to acting according to their narrow interests, declaring 200 mile (or more) territorial seas, interfering with the freedom of navigation and unilaterally appropriating sea-bed resources. The consequences would not be limited to maritime issues. It would only be a matter of time before disputes spilled over into the arena of international politics. That cannot he in the interests of the United States.
The Opposition agree with that. Nor, we would add, can it be in the interests of the United Kingdom.
In a major article on 17 March the Financial Times similarly concluded that
too much bitterness would be created by such a move for the Third World simply to acquiesce. Instead there is the real danger that coastal states would again begin a drive to enlarge their claims over straits, continental shelves and what are now considered to be high seas. It is not in the interests of the United States or its allies to allow this.
There have thus been major, serious and damaging criticisms not only from Opposition Members of Parliament.
I wish to refer also to what the Brandt report said about the activities of transnationals on technology and mineral development. It is true that Brandt was not referring specifically to the Law of the Sea Conference, but the message is the same. On page 272, as one of its priorities for action, the Brandt report states:
International codes of conduct and effective national laws should be agreed to ensure the broader sharing of technology, to control restrictive business practices and to provide a framework for the activities of transitional corporations. A better international investment regime should both enable developing countries to benefit from the expertise and resources of multinational corporations, and promote stable relationships between these corporations and host Governments. It would also encourage greater initiatives and investments for the exploration of minerals and oil in the Third World which are essential for the prospects of world supplies. The weakest countries will require special assistance to permit them to participate effectively in such a regime.
I submit that that is apposite to the Bill. It is amazing how many lessons the Western industrial nations need to learn in order to take cognisance of the hostility and animosity generated by activities of this kind, which are added to by the timing of the introduction of the Bill.


What is really happening? There are clues to be found in the speech of the Minister of State in another place, in the Bill itself and in the speech of the Under-Secretary of State today. As the Under-Secretary of State said, the Bill was the third of its kind in the world, following the action in the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. We are told by the media that France, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Holland are likely to follow. In other words, the rich and powerful industrial nations of the West are acting in concert. That is the whole purpose of getting unity of approach on licensing and the rest. It is clear that a deal has been done.
This is quite openly commented upon by informed people in the media and elsewhere, and apparently secret discussions have been taking place since 1980, or perhaps earlier, on this issue. No one should believe that any of this is fooling the Group of 77 into believing that the real intent is to get an international regime. The real intent seems to be quite the reverse, in spite of the protestations that we hear from the Government.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Absolute nonsense.

Dr. Cunningham: The Minister of State says that that is absolute nonsense. It is one thing for the Government to say publicly what they have said—and I acknowledge that they have said that they are committed to getting an international regime—but the actions of the Government seem to many people, not least to the official Opposition, to contradict that expressed aim. They do not seem to us to be likely to achieve that goal. That is the reality.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly spell out his view of the timing? Clearly, the Bill was introduced before the Elliot Richardson or Reagan Administration change came to the Law of the Sea Conference.

Dr. Cunningham: I do not see the change of the American Administration as being significant to the timing of the Bill. My point is that the Bill follows a similar Bill in America and one in the Federal Republic of Germany. We understand that it is simply one Bill in a long line of Bills that will come from other Western industrial nations.
The Bill and its contents, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, have been devastatingly criticised by his constituent, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and by other people in the scientific world, so that there are great scientific concerns about the intent or our ability to deliver the commitments that the Minister made in his opening remarks. I shall come back to that in a moment.
Why have we been presented with the Bill at this time? That is our first and most fundamental question. Why is it necessary at all, in view of the Government's expressed intention of hoping quickly to finalise an international regime? What is so crucial that it is worth jeopardising the whole of the treaty and all the implications to which I referred a moment ago? How, and in what circumstances, have the Western industrial nations taken the decision to proceed with deep sea mining? Will not this cause bitterness, add to the bitterness and resentment that already exist, and develop into lasting hostility to us, with damaging consequences?
There are strategic issues involved here for major naval and trading Powers. Rights of passage, to which I have referred, through straits and sea lanes are likely to be placed in jeopardy if things go badly wrong. What will happen to the much-vaunted rapid deployment force if that occurs?
We know that the possible—now it seems the probable—availability of mineral resources is important, but far more important are the world issues that are bound up in the proposed treaty, and the issues related to them, which were so graphically spelt out in the Brandt report.
As a chemist, I need no convincing—nor do the Opposition—of the importance of mineral deposits and the massive potential that exists. The Minister mentioned one or two of them. I understand that cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium and zinc, in varying quantities, may be available. They are certainly in many cases very important to us. In the fullness of time there may well be others, and I have no doubt that our ability to extract these and other minerals will improve. So will our ability to understand what is happening in the marine environment, which we do not understand very well at the moment. We also tend to minimise the potential damage to the environment from the scale and the nature of the operations that will be necessary to recover these substances in economic quantities. That scale will, of necessity, be vast, and the problems associated with it will be large and long term.
From the reading that I have done I understand that areas of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, as well as the Pacific ocean, offer some potential, but that, as the Minister rightly says, the area in the mid-Pacific is likely to be the most prolific. Over 300 million square kilometres of that ocean are apparently ripe for exploitation, and the ratios of the minerals there are the highest so far discovered. It is estimated that in the world as a whole about 54 million square kilometres of sea bed could produce economic quantities of nodules. Surely, with the quantities involved, there will be enough for everyone, and enough for us to take time to ensure that the resources are exploited in the way in which the Government say is their real intention.
There are, then, some arguments—the Government have mentioned some, and there are some from industry—for proceeding, and I do not deny that for a moment. There is the question of the development of the technology and the costs involved. The Minister gave four important reasons why it was necessary to have the Bill at this time. It is somewhat amusing for the Minister to say that the Bill—which he called a temporary measure, and which is referred to in its title as a temporary measure—is a Bill to bring stability. How can a temporary measure bring stability? It is a contradiction in terms. How can national legislation bring stability to an area over which we have no authority and no legal jurisdiction? What stability is brought about in that way? That is a fundamental question.
If licences for exploitation are to be issued in the next 12 months, that will be a further torpedo against the chances of the treaty on the law of the sea. The Minister of State shakes his head, and we shall be interested to hear what he says on that matter.
The Under-Secretary talked of licences being issued for 20 years. What is temporary about 20 years? It is an absolute eternity in terms of giving someone a concession to exploit resources in a marine environment. The damage


that could be wreaked in 20 years could be colossal. There is nothing temporary about a proposal to give someone a concession for 20 years, so we were not over-impressed by some of the reasons that the Minister has advanced for saying that we should proceed at this time.
It is clear that the world as a whole may run short of some of these elements. That was brought out in another United Nations document, the Leontief report, in 1977, which said that world supplies of some of these minerals could well run out by the end of the century. It is unfortunate that more attention has not been given—as with other resources, such as energy—to the conservation and recycling of those resources that we already have, rather than having a determination to press ahead at enormous cost—these will not be cheap operations—to exploit more resources in the marine environment.

Mr. Hurd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that British companies should not continue their efforts in this field? Is he saying that they should let American, French and German companies proceed while they fall back and perhaps drop out of the race? Is that his advice?

Dr. Cunningham: As I think the Minister well understands, I am saying that we should use all our effort and bring all our influence to bear to conclude an international treaty. That is our priority. The Government say that it is their priority, but their actions belie that claim. That is our charge.
Industrial countries of the world produce two and a half times as much in minerals per head as do developing countries, but we consume 16 times more per head than do developing countries. That is likely to become increasingly unacceptable to those countries. Furthermore, the West depends largely upon imports for its supply of minerals. About 70 per cent. of all our supplies are imported, mainly from the developing countries, and that dependence is increasing.
The argument can be used both ways. It might be said that that is all the more reason for having our own independent resources, and I see some merit in that argument. However, if we proceed in a way that gives great offence, and if we deny such countries a share in the exploitation of those resources, we are likely to put our existing supplies in jeopardy. It will take a long time—if it is at all possible—to achieve independence of supply. During that time we shall become increasingly dependent upon supplies from the very countries that we are now offending. That is an important consideration and it should be taken into account.
In addition to oil, the marketing, processing or production of minerals such as bauxite, copper, iron ore, nickel, lead, zinc and tin are dominated in each case by a small number of transnational companies. Those companies can, and occasionally do, exert political power through commercial power. Occasionally—I stress that word—companies have used that power unethically, and even illegally.
We know that the tension that exists between those companies and Third world countries—such companies are based mainly in the rich, developed nations—has been a major element in North-South relations, and there is a risk that the activities of such companies will further damage relations. That is all the more reason why we should work carefully and openly for the proposed wide-ranging treaty, as a result of which all would share in the

advantages of the resources of the oceans. It would represent a magnanimous approach and would give a lead and example that others would find stimulating. Few" if any, would be able to ignore it. It would give real meaning to the phrase that such resources are the "common heritage of mankind".
But, no. Given their industrial and economic philosophy and their attitude to the Third world, it is perhaps typical that the Government should decide otherwise. It is interesting to ask what would happen if the treaty were ratified by more than 60 countries. The Treaty would not have to include Britain, the United States of America, Germany, France or Italy. It needs to be ratified by only 60 countries to become effective. What would the situation be? What attitude would we then adopt? That is another important question for the Government to consider.
I wish to ask a number of questions about the details of the Bill. I have already mentioned authority. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will deal with the legal basis of the proposals. What authority have we to issue licences in the way proposed? We are falling into line with our competitor countries. The Minister asked whether we should let them go ahead. It seems that we are not only to become involved with those countries, but to become involved in an organised, planned way. It may well be that any "competition" is purely window-dressing.
I mentioned that we had reservations about the temporary nature of the proposals. We have reservations also about the title of the Bill and the impact, intent and likely result of issuing licences for periods of up to 20 years. In addition we have reservations about the proposed controls on pollution and damage to the marine environment and life. I do not know anyone or any company that claims to have the knowledge, expertise or technical ability to give such guarantees on the large-scale exploitation of minerals from the deep ocean beds of the world. I do not know of any company that can make that claim. Indeed, I would regard any such claim as dubious. Many of those in the technical and scientific world will agree with that point of view.
Nodules have built up over thousands of years. The marine environment has Iain untouched for thousands of years. Marine life has developed undisturbed over thousands and thousands of years. Have we the audacity to presume that with our paucity of knowledge and experience we can give guarantees? I blame the Government a little for suggesting that we can be sure about such things. No one can guarantee that we can do what is proposed without causing serious and lasting damage to the marine environment.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is it not true that any technological advance, whether it invokes going to the moon or any other form of development, may cause damage?

Dr. Cunningham: Of course, I accept that. I should not like hon. Members to think that I am anti-technology. After all, one of the most sensitive technological establishments is in my constituency, namely, Windscale. I have been a consistent supporter of the development of nuclear power. Therefore, I do not hold the view that the hon. Gentleman may fear that I do.
The development of new technology and new processes shows—often in retrospect—that we should be more


careful and that we should take more time to examine the risks involved and the balance of risk. I agree that we cannot eliminate risk completely, but experience, particularly of some multinational companies, shows that they are not the best guardians. That is all the more reason why time should be taken for consideration. It is all the more reason for licensing. I agree with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas). Licensing is one thing; inspection and control are something else.
As a result of my experience in the Labour Administration, I can tell hon. Members about the difficulties that we had in monitoring the flaring of gas by oil companies in the British sector of the North Sea. That is on our doorstep. What possibility is there of carrying out realistic, detailed and systematic control of operations that take place several thousand miles away in the mid-Pacific? Will the inspection and monitoring that will guarantee these matters take place?

Mr. Skeet: If the hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to monitor private companies, how will such a complicated and clumsy body as the international sea bed authority carry out monitoring? Governments, looking after their national interests and integrating their legislataion with their neighbours, will look after the real interests of mankind much more effectively.

Dr. Cunningham: I was not asserting that the international regime would be any more successful, but I believe that there would be a slightly greater chance of success. An international regime could be closer to the action and there could be a more comprehensive approach by national Governments working in concert. Whichever approach we take, it will be difficult.
We have a query about the levy and the fund. Industry has been saying that the levy should not be too high, or it will scare people off. That is typical of multinational operations everywhere. The Government's experience in the North Sea shows that, in retrospect, we always realise that we have been too generous. We then increase taxation and royalties and decide to take more in the public interest, although there is a limit to that. We should not fall for the blandishments of the multinational mining lobby.
I am also unhappy with the Government's proposal that the fund should be wound up, which is indicative of their pessimism. Why should the levy not continue, even if there is no maritime regime? Why should the fund not be designated for our aid programme? That is a more generous view and is far more likely to gain the respect of Third world countries than if we say that the money is to go to the Consolidated Fund—in other words, we shall keep everything if there is no international regime. The proposals will follow the new Committee procedure, so those and other questions will then be examined in greater detail.
The Government's decision to act now is wrong in principle. The Bill is also wrong in detail and, in some respects, inadequate. It is not in the national interest to jeopardise finalisation of the law of the sea treaty. We shall vote against the Bill. Some years ago we committed ourselves to the need for an international ocean regime. We reaffirm that commitment.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: We have listened to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) clutching at straws with both hands. There are problems. We are trying to work out an international convention beneficial to mankind, but there are many ways of doing that without setting up an International Sea bed Authority.
Under international law, companies or consortia that want to mine nodules in the Pacific can do so without an international convention, but they are hesitating because they hope that one will ultimately be realised. It was expected that it would be negotiated at Caracas this year, but the timetable has gone awry and it may not happen until next year. One cannot predict these things with great accuracy. It could be at a later date. The Minister stated that the convention is not likely to be operating, under the normal road to signature and ratification, before the mid or late 1980s, so we are concerned with the intervening period.
We must take account of two facts. First, industrial teams dealing with technology have to be kept together. Secondly, as the Minister said, we must take account of progress in other countries. If the United States is to issue licences in early January 1982, even though the mining cannot be attempted before 1988, we should be at a disadvantage if we could not do the same. As I said, a consortium could go through the American system instead of ours, or possibly take advantage of the German system.
The Group of 77 is not totally against the approach. Clause 18(3) of the Bill gives the Secretary of State the right to revoke the legislation when all the provisions become merged in a convention. That is why what we are discussing is temporary. The House will have some control, because the matter will first be considered by the House on an affirmative resolution.
When the American legislation was endorsed by the President on 28 June 1980, it was expected that there would be a great clamour from the Third world, but that did not happen. The next session of the conference on the law of the sea was most profitable, as many matters were agreed.
The Bill defines hard mineral resources as manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper, phosphorus and molybdenum. In passing, I point out that the British Nationality Act 1948 is mentioned in clause 1(6). I hope that the Minister will note that and have it altered.
What are those minerals used for? Cobalt is critical for jet engine blades, electronic applications and metal alloys, manganese for steel production and nickel for corrosive resistance in chemical and refinery plants. It also has many other applications. Molybdenum is used for imparting hardness, strength and corrosion resistance to steel and no-ferrous metals. Copper has many applications, including electrical wiring and tubes.
As has been said, the United States has taken a strong line under the new President in wishing to review the position. That is reasonable. As a new organisation, it wishes to consider the effect on its national interest. Is the United States to be for ever dependent on Zambia, Zaire and Zimbabwe for cobalt? Should it not be able to obtain cobalt from nodules? Will it have to depend on South Africa and the Soviet Union for manganese? Should it not have the choice of obtaining it from nodules in the 1990s?
It is estimated that in 1978 the United States imported $2·4 billion of nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese.


Nodules could ultimately reduce the United States net imports of manganese from 98 per cent. of consumption to zero, of cobalt from 97 per cent. to zero, of nickel from 77 per cent. to 42 per cent. and of copper from 19 per cent. to 15 per cent., and the United States is a major producer of copper.
We should go into the matter a little more deeply. The dependence of the Western world on South Africa and the Soviet Union must be considered injudicious, particularly when we remember the strategic value of key materials. Let us take world production figures as percentages in 1975.
In that year Canada produced 30 per cent. of the world production of nickel, the Eastern bloc 19 per cent., New Caledonia 16 per cent. and Australia 9 per cent. Of the countries producing 75 per cent. of world production, only one can be classified as a developing State. The remainder can be classified as industrialised States.
The Eastern bloc produced 31 per cent. of the world production of manganese in that year, South Africa 24 per cent., Gabon 11·4 per cent. and Brazil 8·1 per cent. From the countries producing 75 per cent. of world production, only one can be classified as a developing State.
Zaire produced 53 per cent. of the world production of cobalt, Zambia 9 per cent., the USSR and Cuba 10·6 per cent. and New Caledonia and Australia about 12 per cent. Therefore, of 86 per cent. of world production, only three developing countries are the beneficiaries, and they may wish to preserve their interests. Zambia has expressed that view. Nickel and cobalt are exchangeable in many industrial uses.
The United States of America is a major producer of copper, producing more than 18 per cent. The centrally planned economies of the non-free world produced 19·7 per cent., Chile 11·9 per cent. and Canada 10·4 per cent., followed by Zambia, Zaire and Peru. Of 80 per cent. of world production, the leading producers are the United States of America, the centrally planned economies of the East and Canada, which would presumably be interested in sea bed production anyway. A clear picture emerges. The greatest beneficiaries will be not the Group of 77 but the industrialised States of the world. That is unique.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) raised a matter which the Minister could not clarify. Suppose there is a section—we shall call it section X—measuring 10 kilometres by 10 kilometres, valuable in producing copper. If the Canadians, British, Belgians and Americans cast envious eyes on that area, how, under unilateral legislation, do we work that out? The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has made a great study of these matters. I listen to him with great interest. What is his solution to the conundrum put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend which the Minister did not answer? Can the hon. Gentleman answer it?

Mr. Skeet: I shall answer the question when I come to deal with the international organisation for the deep sea bed. I can see the problem. If there is a good deal of local or national legislation, it will have to be co-ordinated. It will be easier to do that than to organise the bureaucracy in an international sea bed authority. I promise that I shall answer the hon. Gentleman on that point later.
The informal text of the draft convention on the law of the sea has been under negotiation since 1973. I appreciate

that that is seven to eight years. The text contains 320 articles and eight annexes. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that within its jurisdiction lies two-thirds of the world's surface. It would have been much greater but for the fact that the exclusive economic zone has been established or agreed, and the area of the continental shelf has been redefined. It must be acknowledged that the continental shelf area, as extended, will accommodate all the oil and gas reserves of the world.
I do not think that the Government will agree with me, but I can see problems arising at every corner with an international sea bed authority. A new cartel is being established for more than two-thirds of the world's surface, and in it a triumvirate of powers are being vested—regulatory, fiscal and operational, including marketing. All those powers are being vested in one body. What is the system of appeal? In the system that we are establishing there is an appeal to the Secretary of State. The United States has a system in which the Minister responsible will be in control. There will be a council and an assembly of the ISA. One cannot overrule the other, except on certain matters. There appears to be a complicated system of voting rights in the council.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is being candid with the House. Is he saying that he does not want an international regime? Surely his objections to an international regime would apply even if there were agreement by all the nations of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Is that not an argument for going ahead on a rich country basis?

Mr. Skeet: That is a direct question. Of course, I want an international convention. We should think about it carefully. The change of Administration in the United States provides an opportunity to reconsider one or two matters. Its decision about the EEZ is correct. Its decision about the continental shelf is reasonable. We shall not examine most of the proposals in the document tonight because it is too vast to cover in the time available. However, it is only right that the House should consider the difficulties. Nobody likes a monopoly, but the ISA will be a monopoly. It is not virtuous simply because it is a public monopoly. We have already been faced with OPEC which is an international body, although admittedly not under the United Nations. But monopolies are not good in any circumstances.
The format of the ISA is incompatible with the accepted principles of free trade, free access to materials and free competition, upon which the economies of the industrial West are based. It may be that that system must change and that a new system will come into operation in the style that is now being formulated. But the West must recognise the changes that are being wrought.
A dangerous precedent will be established by the ISA. When we come to divide Antarctica or space, will we have the same sort of treaty? Many who have not advocated an ISA on this occasion will say that they reserve their defence. Many who concede that, will say that every international convention, whether it be the mandatory transfer of technology or something else, will be governed by the treaty.
The ISA may indeed bureaucratise the sea and achieve a purpose that was never intended. I fully accept that the companies should work for the betterment of mankind. That has been the whole of my philosophy of life. I do my


best to press them along that course. But I do not think that the ISA will achieve that purpose. We had great faith in the League of Nations prior to the war, but it came to nought. The United Nations has not been able to stand up to any of the conflagrations which have occurred across the world. Yet I still support the United Nations. I simply ask that we recognise its limitations.
The system of parallel developments envisaged by the Kissinger proposals in 1976 is a distinctly cumbersome procedure. When a company applies to the ISA for a licence it must apply for two—one for the company to develop under the rules and regulations that will eventually be laid down and the other will be banked by the ISA.
They have no technology and it will take them years to acquire it. I do not know what they will do with it. It may be put aside. It will probably be a long time before anything is done. the delays could be prolific.
I greatly fear that political rather than practical criteria will be used in reaching decisions. If an international body is put in control of taxation, royalties and the rate of return, it may prove to be unreasonably onerous. That may deter the companies from doing anything.
If those with technology are deterred because they cannot see an adequate return, not one of the Group of 77 will be able to do what the companies are able to achieve. I agree that the technology should be made available to mankind, but that must be subject to certain terms and conditions.
The text states:
The programmes for the transfer of technology to the enterprise and to developing States with regard to activities in the area, including inter alia facilitating the access of the Enterprise
that is the operating arm of the ISA—
and of developing States to the relevant technology, be given under fair and reasonable terms and conditions.
It must be remembered that 96 per cent. of technology is vested in firms throughout the world. It is in the firms that are innovative. If there is to be a mandatory transfer, data will have to be paid for. It will have to be subject to certain conditions. It is a concept that is easy to put on paper, but it will not be easy to implement. For example, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany may lose their technological lead. Of course, they will not want to lose it. Those countries may say that there is a risk that proprietary information will be leaked and that the enterprise which is the operating arm, will hand it out to a third party—perhaps a competitor. If that happens, there will be no right of appeal and the information will be lost.
The United Kingdom, for example, may come up against security and defence provisions. The Government may not allow the information to be alienated. It is praiseworthy that the Third world should have all the technology and information available to enable these things to be done, and there are many ways in which this can be provided.
I shall try to answer the question that was posed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). A licensing system for granting exploration blocks would be more difficult under the ISA than under joint Government licensing arrangements secured by a mini-convention negotiated between several directly interested countries with both the technology and the finance to mine nodules. That is not to say that an international convention would

be inhibited. It is right to look forward to an international convention at an early stage. However, I have grave doubts about its immediate implementation.
The forecast of mineral demand has fallen substantially in recent years. Negotiations during seven to eight years have led to certain issues that were previously considered crucial being downgraded in importance. That has happened because of the passage of time and changing circumstances. I shall give one or two illustrations—

Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Gentleman does that—

Mr. Skeet: May I finish the sentence?

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes.

Mr. Skeet: One of the great difficulties is that I cannot see nodules coming into large-scale production for many years. Those years are being deferred even further because of certain matters which I shall mention later.

Mr. Dalyell: How binding in law would be agreements reached under the so-called mini-convention if there were an international treaty? There is no guarantee that the carry-over arrangements would be binding on the subsequent participants.

Mr. Skeet: A mini-convention would apply only to the contractees. It would not bind anyone else. However, the contractees are those who are likely to do the mining. A mini-convention would be merged in time into an international convention. I think that everybody should ultimately participate in the developments. I am in favour of a convention being negotiated, but that will take time to achieve.
I shall indicate why I feel that the Third world will not receive the benefit of nodules at an earlier date. Much sea bed mining will not be attempted if it is feasible to work the nickel laterite deposits in Australia, Indonesia, the Philippine Islands and New Caledonia. Initial mining would not take place before 1988 at the earliest. The existence of low-grade ores might be rather more attractive than ores that come from the deep ocean. Additional land reserves of manganese are to be found in many countries, including Australia, China, India, Gabon, Ghana, the Ivory Coast and Brazil. That will probably give the nodules, which have the highest content of manganese, low priority.
It is essential to maintain industrial expertise in the development of deep sea marine technology. I shall set out the conditions which, in my judgment, should be laid down. First, there should be the acceptance of a convention that is suitable for sea bed operations beneficial to mankind and not simply assumed to be so. Secondly, there should be the establishment of a preparatory commission to lay down the regulations and the procedures of the ISA. That could take a long time, because agreement would have to be secured. Thirdly, preparatory investment protection is crucial to guarantee the inviolacy of the money that has been and, is likely to be spent before the convention comes into operation. I regard national legislation as crucial.
The Minister has not mentioned that production ceilings will be established by the treaty. I agree that the legitimate interests of producers and consumers must be considered. However, it is wrong that there should be a trade-off


between producers. The strategic interests of industrial States should be considered and at least recognised, and that will involve security of supply.
The United States of America absorbs no less than 20 per cent. of the world total production of manganese, yet it produces only 1 per cent. Therefore, it must have a secure source of supply. We must import all our supplies of these key materials. Therefore, we want a secure base as well. Competition from an additional source of supply is not necessarily inhibiting. For example, work on the continental shelf has not been inhibited, because we have land supplies of oil in the Middle East.
I do not want to detain the House too long, but it is only right that I should make clear one or two matters which are of crucial importance.

Mr. Douglas: More?

Mr. Skeet: I have given a little background and it is important that Opposition Members should listen a little further.
Clause 9 deals with the levy. Can the Minister say whether the taxation which will be made available ultimately to the United Nations or an international sea bed authority will be offset against national taxation? It would be unreasonable if the consortia had to pay twice—if it were taxed here and also by an international sea bed authority.
Clause 9(1)(a) is also a matter of great concern to me. Its provisions do not appear in the German legislation, whereas those in clause 9(1)(b) do. Why do we not have a simple system and include only clause 9(1)(b)? Clause 9(1)(a) will cover the sale of nodules and clause 9(1)(b) will cover the recovered products. An arithmetical formula would be able to work out what (a) is, and that would make sense. The matter could be dealt with in that way.
We want a stake in the business for our own companies. Both sides of the House accept that. If the legislation is acceptable to the companies and if it is fair and reasonable, many of the international consortia will want to operate in the United Kingdom, not in Western Germany and the United States. The United States legislation is comprehensive. I should have thought that our legislation was much better.
The care of the environment, which has caused some concern to the Opposition, is dealt with in clause 5. It is a simple clause. The United States legislation is extensive. I believe that our system is much better. As is mentioned in the schedule, certain provisions can be laid down by regulation and not put in the Act.
Another matter which I find distasteful in the American legislation, which I hope will not be repeated here, is that section 102 says:
Each permittee shall use at least one vessel documented under the laws of the United States for the transportation from each mining site of hard mineral resources recovered under the permit issued to the permittee.
Why should there be a vested interest in ships of the United States? I am not certain that we have done any good work by putting what is known as foreign discriminatory action in clause 8. I recommend that that clause be dropped. I assume that it was put in simply as a stick to strike possibly the United States of America. It would be better to follow our usual traditions and to deal with that in due course by negotiation.
I am surprised that the United States legislation says:

Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the processing on land of hard mineral resources recovered pursuant to a permit shall be conducted within the United States".
I know that a provision says that they could be processed in other parts of the world with consent. However, I believe that we should not follow the instructions in the petroleum production regulations and say that, like North Sea oil, minerals must be brought ashore in the United Kingdom, although at a later stage they may be exported. When one is dealing with the great distances over which those minerals may be carried, it is better to leave it to the companies to decide where they will be processed rather than to provide that in the legislation.

Mr. Richard Body: My hon. Friend has more to say and I do not wish to intervene unnecessarily. I have more fundamental misgivings about the Bill than he has. Does my hon. Friend believe that the German legislation is more satisfactory than the Bill?

Mr. Skeet: I have had the opportunity to go through the German legislation in an English translation. We should not favour that legislation because of the background picture in Germany. There is a withholding tax of between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. It might be difficult to repatriate funds under that legislation. I have examined the three pieces of legislation and I believe ours to be the best. When a number of international consortia have been assembled, the country with the best economic environment and legislation will get most of the business later. We should aim to be that country. The Opposition might be impatient, but they will concede that the more business that the United Kingdom secures the better.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about the obligations on companies. How important does he believe the obligations are in terms of employment and safety? I have come across many examples of employees of companies engaged in the North Sea and elsewhere whose health has been damaged and whose remedies have been small or minimal.

Mr. Skeet: That is a helpful observation. Under the schedule to the Bill
The safety, health or welfare of persons employed in any licensed operation or in any ancillary operations
will be covered by the regulations. That is the time-honoured way of operating in the United Kingdom. There is no point in providing extensive coverage in the legislation.
I am glad that in clause 18(3) there is provision for revoking the arrangement if an international settlement or convention is agreed. With the separate legislation which is likely to flow in over the years it is important that a monitoring body should ensure the compatibility of national legislation. If we agree on that at an early stage, we shall prevent difficulties later on.
It might be argued that because an international convention will apply eventually it is not necessary to have the provision at this stage. However, I believe it to be useful because, apart from the three countries that we are discussing now, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Japan are in line for legislation of their own.
The date for licensing applications in the United States is 24 January 1982. It is important that the United Kingdom applies the same date. The legislation must be put through the House as expeditiously as possible. Otherwise, the American legislation could be used and we


could be disadvantaged. I hope that the Foreign Office will bear that in mind and consider the broader issues. It would be meritorious to help British companies a little more in a sphere in which they have considerable expertise.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I always enjoy the peppery style of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), but he will forgive me if I do not follow his long trail. He brought it home clearly that this Bill is about resources. That is what the whole debate is about. I can well understand the development team seeking some assurance to enable them to get on with their pioneering work. What I question is whether this temporary legislation will give them the necessary long-term safeguards which I would have thought they require in order to do this type of work.
Any industrial opportunities that are available ought to be seized with both hands by this country. What is so disturbing is that, despite all the discussions that have gone on at the United Nations law of the sea conferences over the past two decades or more and despite all the efforts to achieve international agreement, we have here something resembling almost legal piracy; the Government are attempting to introduce legislation to exploit the treasures of the deep seas.
The Government describe this as a temporary measure pending international agreement by the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. However, it is clear from what has been said that the United States has already led the way and Germany has quickly followed. In effect those two countries have jumped the United Nations starter gun and the United Kingdom Government are simply going to limp along behind them. It would have been far more impressive if the Minister had said that arms were going to be twisted at international level in order to get the kind of international agreement we have been seeking for the past two decades rather than backs broken to get to the resources on the ocean bed.
Without international agreement, unilateral action by nations will leave companies in a most vulnerable position in the long term and will creat potential conflict. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the Indian Ocean. I am sure that what was at the back of his mind was that if the Siberian adventures of the Soviet Union do not come to pass that country will probably be looking much more closely at what resources might lie on the bed of the Indian Ocean, quite apart from its examination of what is available in the Pacific.
Clearly the legislation has enormous long-term implications for world resources and the global environment. Nearer home we know that oil and natural gas deposits in the North Sea have created all sorts of problems over claims and lines of demarcation. Perhaps the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will tell us this evening whether we have resolved all our problems with the Republic of Ireland over median lines.
The potential represented in deep sea mining and the shortage of resources outlined by the hon. Member for Bedford suggest that there will be a considerable source of conflict in the years ahead. The measure that the Government are attempting to pass into law is one of the biggest smash and grab efforts in a long time.
The Minister knows well that the technological know-how is concentrated largely in the hands of the industrialised nations and that they have the largest demand for the resources that will be available. What I fear is that the guarantees cannot exist without international agreement. Even if we get international agreement there has to be monitoring, as the hon. Member for Bedford pointed out. Clearly, with the United States having decided to review everything, the whole issue has been thrown back into a cauldron of uncertainty. Despite all the lip-service that we pay to the Brandt proposals and the needs of the Third world, efforts of this character will not strengthen the approach towards achieving a better balance between the technology of the North and the needs of the South.
The Minister highlighted another issue in his remarks about having just seen the nodule. I know that the Lord Privy Seal co-ordinates law of the sea matters and other marine matters. With our involvement in the North Sea and with the prospect of deep sea interests being much closer, the United Kingdom should have a single Ministry for marine affairs. Our country is surrounded by sea. We have a coastline of about 6,500 miles. Perhaps a Ministry of marine affairs—

Mr. Douglas: The Government have been at sea for years.

Mr. Craigen: My hon. Friend, who I know is anxious to make a good contribution, says that the Government are already at sea, but that does not guarantee that they have the necessary expertise.
Seeing my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian on the Opposition Front Bench, and knowing his interest in scientific matters, I am prompted to ask what consideration the Government have given to the long-term geological effects of North Sea oil depletion on our coastline. My hon. Friend knows from his constituency the effect of mineral under-workings on land. Within the foreseeable future, problems may be affecting our coastline because of depletion in the North Sea.
The Bill impinges on mineral resources and on transportation throughout the world, because the oceans are a mass highway for the passage of goods and materials. Moreover, as two-thirds of the world's surface is ocean, the sea represents a considerable food storehouse and global thermostat and reservoir. So mankind has a considerable ecological interest in the sea, quite apart from the need for mineral resources. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) periodically raises in the House the issue of hydrography and the need for the adequate charting of our seas, particularly the North Sea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the necessity for departmental back-up in monitoring mining activities. I understand that some years ago the Customs and Excise was approached about extraction from the ocean bed, but the department would not touch it because it did not have available the necessary manpower.
Dr. Kurt Waldheim, speaking at Caracas on 20 June 1976, said that these deliberations must succeed, lest old quarrels on land be replaced by new quarrels at sea. We should not underestimate the importance of the Bill, nor the indication in the Bill that the Government are simply easing off in the necessary efforts to achieve international agreement.

Mr. Richard Body: I agree substantially with some of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Clasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Graigen). All of us are concerned about the views expressed so clearly by the Group of 77. The group undoubtedly has had its suspicions aroused by the manoeuverings of the various international companies that will seek the licences. It can look back on unhappy experiences with some of those companies.
First, why is the Bill necessary? The Law of the Sea Conference, after many holdups and procrastinations, is at last making progress. A text is soon to be broadcast, which, one understands, will be satisfactory to the world. One would have thought that it would be more sensible to await the natural course of events after that. I searched for some time for an explanation for the legislation. The United States and Germany have gone ahead determinedly.
Reading the Official Report of the debate in the other place, one realises what is reasonable. Six international consortia have already invested £150 million. It seems that the consortia wish to invest still more money and are unlikely to plunge—we were told in that debate—another £100 million into the project unless they have assurances contained in legislation.
There is only one way to know how reliable the Bill's assurances are. In issuing the licences the Minister must not only have regard to the criteria set out in clause 5—which do not add up to much—but must consult his counterparts in other countries so that there will be an international carve-up and each consortium will have a fair slice of the cake. Thus, there will be a portion for each consortium. In that way rough justice will be done.
No doubt justice will follow for the six international consortia, but I doubt whether much justice will follow for any interests emerging from developing countries that might wish to have a stake. I have misgivings about the Bill. I should prefer not to seek a licensing system which can be done only on an international basis for the security that the companies require. I should prefer us to wait one or two years for a more rational licensing system, preferably under the aegis of the United Nations.

Mr. Skeet: If we are to prosecute the course that my hon. Friend recommends, he should realise that industrial teams are already being paid. They will have to be disbanded because companies will not commit further funds to the projects. Should they not have State guarantees to protect them?

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend knows that I have rather robust and old-fashioned views about the market economy. I am torn between those views and common sense as expressed by my hon. Friend. I recognise the force of what he has said. One realises that it is important that those companies which have a major stake must be protected. We cannot expect them to go ahead without the sort of security that they have been seeking. But my anxiety is that the Bill will not provide that security and that it can be provided only later, when there is an international carve-up, clandestinely I expect, and the Government will have to act in liaison with their counterparts in other countries, so that each consortium has a fair share and there is no conflict among them. It is a process that I regret, but it may be inevitable.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I have listened with interest to the debate, and particularly to the remarks of the hon. Member of Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). He has a rugged view of the market economy and would not regard it as uncharitable if I said that this view on this issue would be "finders keepers"—those who have the technology to seek nodules should have the right not only to explore but exploit their finds.
That view has a rugged aura about it which may appeal to many Conservative Members, but we have to ask the Government whether there is a strategy behind the Bill or whether it is merely tactical. If there is a strategy, A has to reside in the international rule of law. What is the status of our law and the laws of other nation States in regard to international law? I realise that that may be a difficult and complicated question for the Minister to answer.
It seems to me that the Bill is not part of a strategy, but is tactical, and that the tactics relate not to the rule of law, but to acceptance of the fact that certain nations need the raw materials and—or have the technology to exploit them. The nations with the technology are the United States, Germany and Japan.
The United States is the leader in this area, because the technology bounces off the space programme, which may seem contradictory, and because of the United States' historic lead in offshore oil exploitation. Many of the techniques involved in deep sea mining, particularly drilling, relate to offshore oil techniques.
I am referring not only to drilling to depths of 600 or 800 ft. but to the techniques of dynamically positioned drill ships. Those techniques exist in the United States, and to some extent in Japan. I ought to declare an interest, because I have some knowledge of drilling and I am associated with Scott Lithgow, which has built two dynamically positioned drill ships. Therefore I appreciate some of the technology involved.
If it is to be argued that we shall be left behind in the technology, we ought to consider the present position of drilling in the United Kingdom. The latest Brown Book shows that the United Kingdom's share of exploration and appraisal drilling in our own continental shelf is only 31 per cent. That is a shocking commentary on our ability to exploit technologically our indigenuous resources.
I accept the provisions of clause 8 in terms of trying to get a blocking arrangement in the use of ships, and so on, but I am not satisfied that the Bill will do the job that the Government seem to want it to do. I believe that it will fly in the face of world opinion. We have to balance economic advantage with the position of the rich nations trying to gain an unfair share of a resource that we claim to have internationalised. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said that the Bill flies in the face of the proposals in the Brandt report. Therefore, in terms of giving the companies the assurances that they want, I have great misgivings about whether the Bill will do the job.
I appreciate that time is limited, and I do not want to trespass too much on the patience of the House, but I wonder whether there are lessons to be learnt from our experience of the continental shelf. In the beginning, much of the offshore oil exploration technology was in the hands of the United States. We recognised that fact in our legislation, because we indicated quite clearly that there would be sharing arrangements. If we grant licences,


should not the responsibility of the consortia include the encouragement of companies from the developing world so that they will at least share in the technology? To some extent that would meet the point made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), that somehow or other the developing nations would not have the technology to participate.
We sought to balance our relative lack of technology by writing partnerships into our terms and conditions for licences. On occasions, the Labour Government wisely said that preferential treatment would be given if a public authority was involved.
I accept that in technological terms exploration could be beneficial, but that must be balanced against the ecological argument. That brings me to the question of regulatory authorities. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that no international authority can do this, but no national authority can do it either. If there is to be reciprocity in licensing agreements, is it not possible to write into those agreements a requirement that there should be international co-operation, to ensure that the ecological systems are not disturbed?
The Minister must put a better case for the Bill. I am sure that in Committee we shall go through the measure line by line and clause by clause. The Government's majority will ensure that the Bill will become law, but the Minister must recognise that some of us have grave misgivings about rushing ahead.
It is all very well to say that there will be no exploitation until 1988, but no company will make the type of investment necessary for that exploitation without some clear indication that there is a market for the product.
Perhaps the Minister will also spell out the nature and structure of the British consortia that are likely to apply and their relationship to the United Kingdom in taxation terms. The hon. Member for Bedford raised an interesting point when he said that if we did not act the consortia would register themselves under the United States licensing system. That is a persuasive argument.
What are the benefits in terms of taxation, security and protection for the consortia or any consortium in the United Kingdom? I have an engineering background, and I do not believe that science and technology can be put back into the bottle and recorked. There must be clear regulations. I am a little sad that the Government of my country want to dash ahead at a time when we are struggling to get international agreement.
I accept that the Government will get the Bill, but I hope that they will understand the concern that is felt by Labour Members. We are expressing not only our concern, but the concern that is felt internationally, and we hope that the Government will bear that concern in mind.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Bill appears to be a small and sensible measure, but anyone who has Britain's interests at heart must view with suspicion any measure which has anything to do with our Foreign Office. I therefore put three questions to the Minister, and hope that he will answer them before we proceed further.
The first is a simple question. Will not the Bill make it more difficult to achieve the international agreement which the Government say they want and which everyone agrees is needed? It will be more difficult to achieve

international agreement if there are more and more interested parties with a stake. With an American Bill, a German Bill and a British Bill, many licences will be issued, and many interested parties will have to be squared off, almost on a competitive basis, the British trying to do more for their licensees, and the Americans and Japanese doing likewise. So this Bill may make it that much more difficult for an international agreement to be achieved.
The second question is one that the Minister should answer on Second Reading. We have these splendid, able teams who are anxious to get on with exploration but want a little more security. In the event of an international agreement, which will no doubt be superimposed national licences, will the Government clearly undertake to give appropriate compensation to consortia which have obtained a licence and spent a lot of money and which then find that an international agreement knocks their apparent security for six?
The third question is also simple. If the British Government give a licence to a person and find that the Germans or the Americans have given a licence, or someone else has given a licence, will the individual or consortium get the money back? The Minister may say that there may be a nod or a wink arrangement or a telephone conversation saying "We shall not give it for the same area as the Germans gave it." If that happens, it will not be a British Bill. It will then be an established cartel.
Having put those three questions to the Government, I want to raise two further issues. If, as I hope, there is an international agreement and a great deal of cash comes in, I hope that the Government will argue the case for getting rid of the cash quickly to the Governments concerned, whether of under-developed countries, Britain, Turkey, or any other country. I hope that they will hand out the cash quickly and not establish yet another international bureaucracy to support projects throughout the world.
One of the most dangerous threats, apart from Socialism, to the free economies of the world is the growth of international bodies handing out the equivalent of national contracts. The Government are well aware of the problems of subsidisation, but an even greater danger to the freedom of our economies is the growth of organisations which hand out massive contracts, which can distort the natural disciplines of a capitalist economy, and which seem to provide an immense number of highly-paid jobs for clapped-out politicians and others whom they want out of the way.
I therefore hope that, if we have a fund, the Government will ensure that the cash is handed out quickly and that we do not have a gigantic new organisation with headquarters in Geneva and lots of conferences for all our friends who enjoy that kind of activity.
Secondly, if we have international agreement, let us have some means of enforcement, even if it has to be three secondhand gunboats to shoot those who do not agree. We should always remember what happened to the whales. If 77 countries come to an agreement that only their licensees may do something, and if we then find that someone else is operating from Liberia or wherever, surely we should have some procedure to destroy their works. Those who do not agree should remember the international agreement on whales. Everyone agreed, but the poor bloody whales go on getting killed.

Mr. Tom Normanton: Inasmuch as the Bill gives clear evidence of recognition that an international agreement on the law of the sea and all that flows from it is desirable and necessary and one day will have to be reached, the House should give it a warm and constructive welcome. Nevertheless, at this stage I have a number of questions for the Minister.
First, how does my hon. Friend see the Bill matching up, marrying or being compatible with the thinking on this subject which is and has been developing within the European Community? The Minister referred to Germany. I earnestly hope that he or his right hon. Friend has had general discussions on this theme in the appropriate Council of Ministers. If not, I hope that the House will be given an assurance that there will be a long and intensive dialogue along these lines.
Secondly, does he see the possibility—having studied the Bill fairly carefully, I do—of the Bill serving as a guideline to the kind of legislation which in my opinion will ultimately have to be formulated and promulgated on a Western European basis, which to me means on the basis of the European Economic Community?
Thirdly, I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my reminding him that the European Community, of which Britain is a signatory, is in treaty linked with the Lomé II convention—an institution which brings the 61 ASP States into ever-increasing commercial, industrial, financial and even, in a remote sense, social relationships with Western Europe and the European Community. I earnestly hope that the Minister will bear in mind the importance that those countries place upon finding some solution to this long-standing problem involving a law of the sea which in many cases will affect them as much as, if not more than, the countries of Western Europe.
Bearing in mind the fact that three Conservative Members serve on the EEC consultative assembly on the Lomé convention, will the Minister use them to help give a better and more constructive understanding of his aims and objectives as I interpret them in the Bill? I assure my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we welcome the spirit of the initiative, but we recognise that it is only too easy for it to be misunderstood and misinterpreted, by those with politically hostile thoughts in mind, in terms of the Lomé convention States.
Lastly, I ask that British firms which are interested in this area of profound high capital investment and ever-increasing complexity of high technology should be invited to look carefully at—and, indeed should be helped to avail themselves of—the financial support which the Community readily makes available for projects in this area.
The initiative of the Government should be welcomed and given constructive—perhaps critically constructive—consideration by hon. Members. On the other hand, the Bill, when it comes into effect, must not be one of those many measures on the statute book which serve as a dead hand to inhibit investment, initiative and the expansion of technology in an area of ever-growing importance. I hope that it will not, and I accept the assurances, which I read into the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, that that is not in the Government's mind. If I interpret his views correctly, I am confident that that will not be the case.

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West): It has transpired that my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) were right: this has been a debate about international law.
You will not believe this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I find international law a very emotive subject. It is one of the things that turn me on. I accept at once that that places me in a minority. But international law is about conducting international relations without recourse to war. It is about peace. Perhaps, if it had been recognised earlier that this was a debate about peace, there would have been more of our colleagues adorning the Benches on each side of the House.
I become emotional about international law because it is a method by which the nation States accept rules about their behaviour towards one another, about resolving disputes by adjudication, and about renouncing the use of physical or economic muscle in favour of consensus to decide who gets what. I am sure that that will appeal to Conservative Members, because law and order was one of the subjects that figured largely in their manifesto.
The importance of international law in relation to the sea bed is a subject about which some of us have felt passionately for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to my noble Friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. Many years ago, my hon. Friend and Lord Ritchie-Calder and I were fighting shoulder to shoulder on this matter, on which I wish more people would chain themselves to the railings. There is not time now to recognise the contribution that they made, but perhaps the House will forgive me if I spend a few minutes in rehearsing the route by which we arrived at this debate.
The sea, as we have been told more than once, occupies more than two-thirds of the earth's surface, yet for the greater part of the world's history it has received very little attention from lawyers or legislators, mainly because human activities there have been very simple. People wished to sail on the waters without wishing to add to the problems imposed by natural conditions, so it was necesary to eliminate piracy, and the Governments of the world co-operated to bring that about.
It was necessary to have elementary international rules about navigation, but usually there was plenty of room to sail without colliding. People wanted to fish, but there was enough for everyone, if only because there were narrow limits on what could be caught with the technical means available. People wished to use the oceans as sewers for their pollutants, but before the recent onset of industrial pollutants, the sea was big enough to absorb them. Countries wished to control a sufficient strip of water around their coasts to ensure that they were not surprised by hostile invaders. For that purpose, three miles was quite sufficient.
So the rules were simple and they were basically about nations keeping off one another's backs. The regime that obtained in the seas until the mid-twentieth century was basically the regime that obtained on land 3,000 years ago, when man was a hunter. In this century those activities became more complicated. Ships became faster, larger, less manageable and more numerous. As a result, the navigation rules had to be more complicated. Fishing techniques became so effective that some species are in danger of extinction. Unless there are effective limits on fishing, that occupation will self-destruct. As the hon.


Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, species such as the whale and the dolphin look as if they will be deliberately hunted to extinction.
Over large areas pollutants are being poured into the ocean more quickly than it can absorb them. That is particularly true of oil, but it is also true of many other substances. Unless all the coastal and river States agree to improve their pollution standards—admittedly, with the corresponding expense—we shall end up by poisoning one another. Hostile invaders can travel at such speeds that the old three-mile limit is pointless. The seas can be used as hiding places for weapons of mass destruction. People have discovered various means of using the sea for leisure pursuits, and techniques have evolved for winning mineral resources, particularly oil, from below the seas.
All those activities require regulation. Unless they are regulated, they are mutually incompatible. An oil rig can be a danger to navigation. A pollutant can poison off the fish stocks. This century has brought its own problems. In addition, it has brought in a new factor, namely, the nodule. Knowledge of the existence of the nodule was not new. The "Challenger" returned from its voyage in 1836 with the information. But that was simply an interesting scientific discovery. It was known that there was immense wealth on the ocean floor, but there was no technique for exploiting it. Only in International Geophysical Year, in 1957–58, did it emerge that those minerals might be recovered from the ocean floor and that they might be recovered one day more cheaply than from the land. It was a new ball game. Until then no country had much incentive to stake out part of the ocean floor as its territory.
It was accepted that outside the jurisdicton of a nation State there were things of interest, but they did not matter much. Now the danger arose that there could be a rush to stake out national territorial claims and that there might be a latter-day Klondike. It produced a list of dangers similar to that produced in the Klondike. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline mentioned one such danger. He pointed out that those who were economically strongest and most technologically advanced could get there first and scoop the lion's share of the world's wealth, while the rest of the world was deprived of any share. It would be like the enclosure movement in Britain in the eighteenth century, which decimated commons. There was the danger that the arguments and squabbles over who grabbed what would lead to the risk that one of those squabbles would escalate into a major war. It was like the rush to establish colonies in Africa in the nineteenth century. In addition, there was a danger that we would endow an area that occupies a substantial part of the earth's surface with opportunities for enrichment without the accompanying law and order, just like the Klondike.
As the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) pointed out, happily this was not the only area in which a need became apparent for establishing an international regime of law and order in what had previously been territory outside national jurisdiction. Happily, international agreement was reached about Antarctica before the prizes became too glittering. In outer space increasing occasions arose for conflict, but the countries involved were determined to resolve their difficulties. So we had some idea how to proceed.
It was clear that in relation to the oceans we needed to establish two principles. First, there was a need to set

limits to the area over which an individual State could claim territorial jurisdiction. Already, the three-mile limit had generally become a 12-mile limit. For some purposes some countries spoke of a 200-mile limit. In 1958, they got together at the Geneva convention. That assured coastal States of jurisdiction over offshore areas to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that, to the limit where the depth admitted the exploitation of natural resources. Even at that date it was not generally realised that that formula virtually renounced all limits on human greed and that there was technology within the foreseeable future for exploitation at much greater depths than 200 metres. It was vital to set limits on the territorial demands of nation States.
Secondly, there was a need to ensure that areas outside the exclusive jurisdiction of nation States should not be left without regulation as a domain of anarchy but should be regulated by an international authority—but, with respect to the hon. Member for Bedford, not an ineffective international authority like the League of Nations but one backed by national authorities and police forces. Neither was it to be a bureaucratic international authority, as suggested by the hon. Member for Southend, East. It was intended to have the means of enforcement to impose a regime of law and order, without which no company could safely invest the cost of exploitation and research. In return, it would ensure that those who exploited and profited from the mineral resources would pay a contribution from which the remainder of mankind would benefit, particularly in the less technologically developed countries.
Many of us, even in those days, were concerned. We wrote about the matter and discussed it. For a time, we wondered whether agreement would be reached before it was too late. Even then, it seemed that there was no limit to human folly.
Then, at the United Nations General Assembly in 1967, Ambassador Pardo made a speech. It is not given to many speeches to change the course of history, but his did. The United Nations adopted his terminology and agreed that the sea bed
beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction
was
the common heritage of mankind.
It proceeded to establish a permanent committee on the peaceful uses of the sea bed and the ocean floor. In 1970, the committee recommended that there should be convened a Conference on the Law of the Sea, which duly happened in 1973.
There followed seven years of hard work and bargaining. Jacob's seven years of work for Rachel were a holiday compared with the work that some people put into the Law of the Sea Conference. I accept that it did not always demonstrate a sense of urgency, but it produced a plan that was generally agreed for an international sea bed authority, which would license mining in the common area, exact a levy on the products of the sea bed to be used for the benefit of mankind and participate in running some of the activities through its commercial undertaking—the Enterprise.
It was hoped that when the conference reconvened for this session it would be able to resolve the outstanding disputes, to agree the final text and to sign it as an international convention. It is true that no State will be bound until it ratifies, and I agree that it will be a few years before the convention becomes effective because of


waiting for 60 ratifications, but matters were moving in the right direction and at least the vital signatures would have been on the text.
However, commercial interests in the United States, and I suspect, elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven said, did not want international agreement. They wanted to scoop up the profits for themselves. In June 1980, the United States Congress passed the Deep Sea Bed Hard Mineral Resources Act. It purported to recognise that eventually there would be an international authority, but in the interim it claimed to license United States citizens and companies to prospect and recover minerals. The United States was going it alone.
When the delegates assembled for the 10th session, as has been said, they read the bald press release by the United States ambassador. It was as though Dan McGrew had charged into the marshal's office and announced that he was considering his attitude to law and order but would meanwhile proceed with robbing the bank.

Mr. Skeet: The Americans did not want the money for themselves. There is a levy. It is taxation, but it is being paid into a separate fund for the benefit of mankind. It is not enrichment for the Americans or the companies.

Mr. Archer: I shall come to the relationship between the profits to be made and the size of the levy, compared with the levy that would have been imposed had the law of the sea conference reached a successful conclusion—a very different matter. And there is a difference between a fund under international control and one in the control of an individual country.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: How long does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it right for us to wait for the conference to reach a decision? How many years will that take?

Mr. Archer: The United States could have waited for one more session, which could have been sufficient. It was an act of national selfishness and national cynicism. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) gave the reason for that, and it was the same reason as that given in The Times on 9 March. The Times put it neutrally, and in a way that might appeal to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). It said:
The mining consortiums feel, however, that the system is weighted against them. They alone have the technology to mine on the ocean floor, but fear that the arrangements under the convention would severely limit their ability to make profits, and make them vulnerable to political decisions by the new authority.
That is exactly what it would have done. That is what it was intended to do.
It is curious that the Bill was introduced in another place before the press release issued by the American Government. I am not suggesting that there is anything sinister about that. No doubt they made their views known to the Government. But it shows that a number of things were being said privately among Governments before even the delegates to the law of the sea conference were informed. The companies pressing for all this might have paid a higher levy, but they would have had the protection of a stable international regime. They cannot complain about the absence of law and order and then renounce it when it suits their book.
I accept that that provided a problem for Governments, including ours. I do not want to be unfair to them. My hon.

Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) put his finger on the matter when he said that if a group of people are in sight of agreeing a set of rules for their mutual benefit, by which they all renounce the use of individual muscle in favour of justice and civilised behaviour, when one of them announces that he prefers discord to harmony and that he will grab what he can the remainder are faced with a dilemma. If they simply continue to talk, they risk finding that he has already scooped the pool and there is nothing left to talk about. It is therefore tempting to break off the discussions and join in the scrum.
I fear that in law and order there is the operation of Gresham's law—bad behaviour drives out good behaviour and uncivilised behaviour drives out civilised behaviour. But to retaliate in kind without hesitation is to support the wreckers, to abdicate any power to redeem the position and to jettison any prospect of focusing international opinion in favour of a better future.
As has been said again and again, this measure will sour the whole atmosphere. It will substantially set back the hope of international agreement. In the process, it will jeopardise other activities, such as navigation, antipollution measures and fishing. I accept that it is a matter of judgment as to which of the reactions would have been appropriate to the American action. If it rested there, I suppose that I would be compelled to concede that the Government differ from us but that it is a matter of weighing conflicting considerations.
The matter does not rest there, for three reasons. First, the Bill itself discloses a fallacy. The action would be justified if it was vital to act immediately. But clause 2(4) makes it clear that no exploitation will be authorised by licence granted under this Bill until 1 January 1988. There is no question of anyone making a penny of profit by licence under the Bill for another seven years. The Government well know that companies do not need to be licensed to prospect. They can prospect now.
That is why the problem of jurisdiction does not arise. Anyone can license anybody to do anything. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian could license me to remove the Tower of London. That would mean that he would not object if I removed it. The problem would arise if somebody else subsequently objected. That is the problem that the companies are inviting the Government to consider. The companies do not want to spend money on prospecting unless there is a reasonable guarantee that their sites will be protected from incursions by cowboys.

Dr. John Cunningham: They want the Government to back them up.

Mr. Archer: Indeed. But that could be achieved without legislation. It would require only a declaration by the Government that when their investments were likely to bear fruit they would be protected. That is all that the Government are achieving in the Bill. Of course, any future Government might disagree with such a declaration. But a future Government could repeal the Act.

Mr. Skeet: Would a future Labour Government repeal the Act?

Mr. Archer: Whether a future Labour Government would repeal it would depend on many circumstances.

Mr. Skeet: Ah.

Mr. Archer: Of course. We are talking about a situation that has not yet arisen. That is our argument. The Bill is premature. It is not required yet.

Mr. Skeet: If the Bill is enacted and no international convention is signed in one year's time or two years' time, or by the time of the next general election, and if, by a great misfortune, a Labour Government were returned, would that Government repeal the Act?

Mr. Archer: A number of other questions would have to be asked.

Mr. Skeet: Answer that question.

Mr. Archer: There are many factors that would determine such a decision. The weakness of the hon. Gentleman's question is that if the Bill were not on the statute book there would be a much greater prospect that the convention would be signed in one or two years' time. This legislation will achieve nothing that could not have been achieved without it. As has been said repeatedly, the companies will have no security from this legislation that they could not have had by means of an international agreement. It is a totally disruptive and provocative measure. It was premature to introduce it at this juncture.
Secondly, the United Kingdom is placing itself in the vanguard of those wo have jumped to follow the American example. As has been said, West Germany followed America very quickly along the path to anarchy. Those are two countries which are renouncing respect for the international community. There may be others which are proposing to do so. Nothing would have been lost if we had waited to see what course other countries took. That was one of the factors which should have determined whether the United Kingdom legislated, and whether a future Government would repeal the Act.

Mr. Skeet: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying "Wait and see"?

Mr. Archer: Of course. There are times when I really wonder. To legislate without waiting to see strikes me as the politics of the crystal ball. If it were vital to legislate at once it would be a different matter. Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not care about the other factors. He has other fish to fry, and we know what they are.
Nothing would have been lost if we had waited to see what the other European countries did. The United Kingdom has legislated in advance of them. It will appear in the history books that we enthusiastically rushed to hang on to the American coat tails. That is how it will appear to developing countries. They will see our action as a deliberate and cynical denunciation by technologically advanced countries of their international obligations.
Thirdly, the Law of the Sea Conference had almost reached agreement on the text of a convention. The text made provision for a levy on the value of the minerals extracted and included the requirement that the money should be paid into a United Nations fund for the benefit of all mankind. I accept that the Bill provides for a levy to be paid by the holder of a licence to exploit. Clause 9 provides for the payment of the levy and clause 10 provides that it shall be paid into a fund.
Clause 9 sets out the method of calculation. There are two alternatives. It is accepted that whichever method is used—obviously the companies want a choice and they will adopt whichever method suits their books—will produce a levy that will be about half that which would

have been produced by the Law of the Sea Conference text. So a company which recovers minerals under this legislation will save itself about half of what it would otherwise have had to pay and will deprive the rest of the world of that amount.
So it is hardly surprising that the Group of 77 has announced that it will not recognise unilateral national legislation on the subject. In another place the Earl of Gowrie conceded that the figure was about half. He spoke of the disincentives to mining companies and the difficulty of competing with other countries if their levies were lower than ours. I accept that. That is the argument. In such matters it is the most selfish, the most anti-social and the meanest nation—so far, the United States—that establishes the norm for everyone else. That is Gresham's law.
It is possible that a low rate of levy was adopted to put pressure on the developing countries to agree to all the outstanding demands of the advanced countries.

Mr. Skeet: They are still negotiating.

Mr. Archer: Of course they are still negotiating, but that is twisting their arms a little. Is it not a little international blackmail? If that is true, it is a shameful device. If it is not, it is just an announcement that the companies wish to get away with the minimum payment that they can make.
There are two other matters that I should like to raise on Second Reading, since they go to the foundation of what we are discussing. In a number of interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked what would happen if two national Governments issued licences for the same site. He received no answer. I have no doubt that the answer is coming now, but it troubles me that it was a fundamental question. It was the obvious question. A child would have asked it upon hearing about the Bill. Yet obviously, it was not uppermost in the Minister's mind.
That troubles me because it appears to mean either of two things. Either, the Government have not considered the matter and are leaving such questions to chance. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the procedures for avoiding duplication, who will arbitrate if there is a dispute, and according to what rules they will arbitrate. Will they be privately agreed rules or will they be published so that we know what they are? The other possibility is that the Governments concerned might have reached an informal agreement to divide the deep ocean bed—the common heritage of mankind—among national spheres of influence. If that second conclusion is right, I can only echo the words of Miss Marlene Dietrich:
When will they ever learn?
In 1973, in the early days of the Law of the Sea Conference, America proposed a scheme that became designated "the Nixon proposal". It divided the ocean bed into blocks, like a patchwork quilt. Each country was to be allocated a number of blocks. So the United States would have a few blocks, and the United Kingdom and Monaco would have a few blocks in the middle of the Pacific. We asked what machinery there would be for enforcement in relation to the United Kingdom.
We asked how Monaco could get its gunboats to the middle of the Pacific and how it would exploit it, even if it could do so. That was like the Anglo-Saxon system of agriculture, except that there are methods of marking strips


in a field, however unsatisfactory, but no one has yet devised a method of marking out boundaries on the ocean floor. It must have been one of the battiest schemes—

Mr. Archie Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Archer: I shall give way in a moment.
It must have been one of the battiest schemes ever thought of. I use the expression "thought of in its loosest sense. Some of us were worried in case the British Foreign Office took it seriously. In fairness, I shall say that it abstained from the vote on the proposal.
I attended a press conference on 15 June 1973. It was attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who has long been concerned about that topic, by Sir John Foster, who was then a Conservative Member, a former Minister and a distinguished lawyer with an international practice, by Lord Wilberforce, one of this country's most distinguished judges, whose knowledge of making international law was not confined to theory, because he represented this country in negotiations on a number of occasions, by the Right Rev. Prelate the then Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Lancelot Fleming, who, in addition to being a distinguished theologian, enjoyed a formidable reputation as a geologist and explorer, and by Mr. Patrick Armstrong, clerk to the all-party group on world government, who has made a lifetime study of the subject.
We warned that if that proposal were proceeded with not only would the technical problems be insoluble but, human nature being what it is, it would be a recipe for disputes, uncertainty, violence, national confrontations and, ultimately, for wars.
The proposal was abandoned long ago. It is remembered as one of the more bizarre episodes in the history of international relations. It is destined to be included in a book that I shall write in my retirement, if someone does not beat me to it—an anthology of silly suggestions.
I am troubled because I wonder whether, the proposal having been buried, its ghost has been resurrected. If the alternative to misunderstandings and conflict about duplicate licensing is an agreement about spheres of influence of that kind, we might be confronted with a version of the Nixon proposal which appears to be less absurd only because it has not been spelt out.
My hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven, for West Lothian and for Dunfermline raised another question. The oceans are a meeting place for many different activities with complicated inter-relationships, which means that one activity might seriously affect others. Mining activities might pollute the beginnings of a food chain, which will seriously affect fish stocks and the conservation of rare fish and mammals. The difficulty is that we know so little about the ecology of the ocean floor. If we once arouse Leviathan we do not know what chain of events we shall begin.
The Law of the Sea Conference has paid great attention to that. However, the Bill simply provides in clause 5 that the Secretary of State "shall have regard" to such matters. That is a vague formula to protect such an important consideration. The Bill was improved in another place with the help of my noble Friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. I am not an uncritical admirer of the House of Lords, but I accept that sometimes a good thing comes out of Nazareth. But there is still reason for great anxiety. The

activities that the Bill will licence are irreversible. We cannot unpollute or revive an extinct species. We need more assurances.
In much of human activity regulation for the foreseeable future must be by the nation State. That is what the House is about. But there are spheres of activity, and they are increasing, which need other machinery for decision-making, and where ordinary people believe that they could be better represented. The Bill is a proposal by the Government, but many people in this country bitterly resent what is being done in their name.
The Minister was right to say that the subject is exciting. It is immensely exciting. The question is, who is seeking to stifle these exciting possibilities? Last Sunday The Sunday Times carried an article under the heading:
Reagan tries to play King Canute.
It is not the Opposition, not the developing countries, not the United Nations and not world opinion that are opposed to an exciting future. Of course there is a chance to win untold wealth for the benefit of mankind and perhaps to transform the world's economy. The only question is, who is to benefit and in what measure?
But there are more exciting prospects still. There is a chance to substitute law and order for anarchy over two-thirds of the world's surface. There is a chance to show that there are better ways of resolving disputes than by the use of force. There is the chance to establish co-operation in place of conflict and perhaps to use this as an example over other and wider ranges of human activity. There is a chance to bring mankind together instead of dividing it. If we in the United Kingdom turn our backs on those prospects we shall be judged by posterity, and we shall be judged to our eternal shame. That is why hon. Members on this side of the House will vote against the Bill.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made rather similar speeches; they were powerful and interesting speeches which were easy to listen to, but there seemed to be a strange hole in the middle of the argument. They both made strong speeches in favour of an international treaty on this subject. Then they used the conviction which they held, and which the whole House holds, as if it were a reason for voting against the Bill. There seemed to be a gap in the argument which they were unable to fill.
There is no need for either hon. Gentleman to wag his finger at this side of the House about the desirability of having an agreement and a treaty. We looked into this shortly after we were elected and came to the conclusion that there was no doubt that in the British national interest we needed a treaty. As has been pointed out often, the present draft is the result of many years' patient work. Although it is not what we would have drafted ourselves in all respects, nevertheless it should form the basis of the eventual agreement.
The British delegation has worked hard under this Government, as under the last Government, to reach agreement—not least in the last few weeks. The idea that there is some conspiracy in which we are involved to frustrate the negotiations is absurd. I do not think it is


believed by anybody except the Opposition. The echoes which reach us of the views of the Group of 77 do not support that belief.
A treaty is still some way off. The date when a treaty would enter into operation is several years away. Even if agreement were reached tomorrow—obviously it is not going to be—then there would be the period of the preparatory commission followed by the period of ratification. It is the gap between this evening and the date when even on the most optimistic assumption an international agreement could come into force that this Bill is about.
I asked the hon. Member for Whitehaven whether during this period, which will last several years, he wanted Britain to fall out of the race. He did not answer the question. On his analysis, which has just been repeated by the right hon. and learned member for Warley, West, the answer to that question must be that he does want Britain to fall out of the competition. He wants no legislation because he is going to vote against the Second Reading. He wants no kind of protection, even imperfect, to be extended to British companies while their competitors, other members of the consortia, will be going ahead and developing their investment and expertise.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) put forward the same argument. He started by saying that he did not want British industry to lose its opportunities, then he went on to fall into exactly the same hole by producing an argument that we should do nothing for the time being. I do not understand how that attitude of doing nothing over this crucial period of several years would benefit the Third world in any way.
I cannot see how this would advance the aims of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we abstain from legislation at this time it will simply mean that British companies might—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was going to say "would"—lose interest, to some extent check their investment and thus postpone the contribution which Britain could eventually make to the enterprise when there is an international agreement.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister is prostituting his experience in foreign affairs when he pursues the argument which he is pursuing. Everybody who has taken any interest in this issue knows that we do not need to license companies to prospect, to explore or even to exploit these resources. The point is—he knows it without my reminding him—that we are breaking ranks in the international sphere in this activity in a way which jeopardises the reaching of an international agreement in the shortest possible time. I accept what the Minister said about the time taken to reach international agreement. We do not need to take these measures to allow these companies to be involved. The Minister knows that as well as I do.

Mr. Hurd: That is not their view. They say that they need a measure of this kind, or they will find it difficult to do A and B, and the hon. Gentleman says that they do not need it—

Dr. Cunningham: They do not need it.

Mr. Hurd: Who is to make the decision? It is the companies, not the hon. Gentleman. On the second point,

the hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence to support the thesis that, by passing this legislation, we are jeopardising or souring the continuing negotiations. The Carter Administration passed the United States legislation. There was some sporadic criticism at the time, but where is the evidence that that United States legislation of last year soured the negotiations? It did not. Where is the evidence that the German legislation also on the statute book soured the negotiations? It is a proposition that has been repeatedly put forward without any evidence to support it.
This is one of the difficulties we find in the whole range of North-South issues. We are constantly being told that certain actions or inactions by the Government are bringing our name into disrepute in the Third world. We always hear it from right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. We do not hear it from the developing countries. The only evidence outside this House brought to bear was the evidence quoted from Lord Ritchie-Calder. He is a distinguished gentleman, but that is a different matter from his being able to show the House that this legislation and other decisions of this kind by the Government are producing the effect in the Third world that they allege. The evidence is not produced because it is not there.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister tell us the status of the complementary national legislation in international law? That is the kernel of the argument.

Mr. Hurd: I was expecting the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West to develop the point, but he did not. I thought it was one of the main Opposition arguments so we examined it carefully. There are no grounds for supposing that this legislation infringes international law in any respect, any more than the United States legislation or the German legislation did. Nor is that the view of the international community as a whole.
Hon. Members have rightly tackled and probed the question of the protection of the environment. They are also right to say that there can be no guarantee that this measure, or any measure, would provide total security for the marine environment.
I draw attention to paragraph 5 of the schedule, which, under the heading "Subject matter of regulations" lays down that the Secretary of State may include in the regulations
The prohibition of any method of working which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is or is likely to be harmful to any marine creatures, plants or other organisms or their habitat".
That is a fairly wide definition, but it is not a total guarantee. Once again I ask the House to accept that the choice here is between some protection or no protection, some licensing or no licensing, some provision for the environment or no provision for the environment, in this period of several years that we are talking about. That is the choice, and we believe it is right to make an effort in this direction, accepting that it may not be, at least at the outset, complete.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) asked whether there would be co-operation with other Governments on the evironmental point and the answer is "Yes".
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford in a remarkably perceptive speech—[Interruption.] There is a certain amount of mockery from hon. Members who were not here to listen to my hon. Friend's speech. He went to


the core of the matter. He has misgivings not about the principle of a treaty but about what he called the danger of bureaucratising the system. The danger exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) covered the same ground. We are involved in the negotiation—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Hurd: We are involved in an immensely complicated series of interlocking negotiations. If one takes away important parts of that structure in an attempt to improve it, one starts to unpick bits which have already been negotiated and there is a danger that the whole structure will collapse. We are conscious of that as the negotiations move towards what we hope will be success.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other detailed questions with which I shall not deal because there will be further opportunities to discuss them. However, he stressed the importance of tax, especially the payments to the sea bed authority which, under present law, would probably be considered as allowable business expenses. Companies feel that that is not adequate and that such payments are more like taxes. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry has said that he will consider that with the Treasury to see whether it is possible to meet the concern.
The main point which has been stressed by several hon. Members is how one insures against different national Governments licensing in the same area. It is precisely because of that difficulty that we believe an international agreement, such as is being negotiated, is best, because it offers the best assurance against such a clash. We argue that national legislation cannot provide that total assurance by its very nature. Therefore, during the interim period of several years there must be co-operation and co-ordination with reciprocating countries—under the phraseology of clause 3—which have similar legislation.
The number of consortia presently involved is not enormous. Therefore it should not be an insoluble problem in the interim. That is an imperfect answer, but the alternative asked for by the Opposition is no legislation and no attempt to resolve the clash. Thus one may see wildcat operators in the same promising patch and there will be no attempt to deal with them until an international agreement comes into force.
Although the Bill does not purport to provide a perfect answer, it provides a better answer than the Opposition would provide by having no legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) expressed doubts from the opposite point of view.

Mr. Archer: The Minister has already made the point that it should be practicable to avoid conflict because there are so few consortia able to do exploitation work. He talks about cowboys and wildcats. Who are these wildcats'?

Mr. Hurd: By definition one cannot say who they may be, but they might exist, as we are dealing with hypotheses. Perhaps I should summarise my argument as the right hon. and learned Member has not understood it. The best answer to the problem that he posed is the international agreement for which we are working. The worst answer would be to make no attempt, and an interim answer is what is proposed in the Bill—which, we accept, needs to be associated with co-operation with countries that propose similar legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) mentioned the EEC. Obviously this is a matter on which we need to be in close touch with our partners and we are trying to get a clause in the convention to enable the EEC to participate in it. That is one of 'the outstanding points.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West argued that under the Bill there could be no exploitation before 1988 and he asked why we needed the Bill. He fails to understand that exploration comes before exploitation. The fact that exploitation would be barred before 1988—because we do not want to prejudice international agreement—does not mean that the Bill will prevent essential exploration. The core of our case is that we see no reason why British companies should be discouraged from exploration when other countries are steaming ahead.
There must be impetus behind the international negotiations. We hope that the American review will be completed quickly and will result in a resumption of the negotiations so that they can be wound up quickly. There must also be an impetus among the companies through their investment and interest. It is no good having the companies ready without a decent framework in which to operate and no good having the framework with no companies interested in taking part. We must press ahead on both fronts, and it is to enable us to do so that the Government believe that the Bill is essential.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 68.

Division No. 163]
[10.07 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Alton, David
Clegg, Sir Walter


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Beith, A. J.
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dover, Denshore


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, John
Elliott, Sir William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brown, Micheal(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Forman, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Freud, Clement


Buck, Antony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butcher, John
Goodhew, Victor






Goodlad, Alastair
Nelson, Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Normanton, Tom


Grist, Ian
Onslow, Cranley


Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Haselhurst, Alan
Penhaligon, David


Hawksley, Warren
Pollock, Alexander


Heddle, John
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Henderson, Barry
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Renton, Tim


Hordern, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rossi, Hugh


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Skeet, T. H. H.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Le Marchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Loveridge, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Thompson, Donald


Macfarlane, Neil
Thornton, Malcolm


MacGregor, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McQuarrie, Albert
Trippier, David


Major, John
Trotter, Neville


Marlow, Tony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Waddington, David


Mather, Carol
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Wakeham, John


Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Watson, John


Mellor, David
Wells, Bowen


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wickenden, Keith


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Moate, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Morgan, Geraint



Murphy, Christopher
Tellers for the Ayes:


Myles, David
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Tony Newton.


Neale, Gerrard





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, Bob


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dixon, Donald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dormand, Jack


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Douglas, Dick


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Cowans, Harry
Eadie, Alex


Craigen, J. M.
Eastham, Ken





Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Morton, George


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Newens, Stanley


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Golding, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Robertson, George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Rooker, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Russell
Tinn, James


Lamond, James
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
White, Frank R.


McCartney, Hugh
Wigley, Dafydd


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Winnick, David


McElhone, Frank
Woolmer, Kenneth


McWilliam, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Allen McKay


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Special Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions)

Resolved,
That any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to deep sea mining operations may provide—
(a) for the levying from holders of licences granted under that Act of sums equal either to 3·75 per cent. of the value of certain deposits recovered in pursuance of the licences or to 0·75 per cent. of the value of certain elements or compounds found in such deposits;
(b) for the payment into the Consolidated Fund, in certain circumstances, of the proceeds of the levy; and
(c) for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees or other sums received by the Secretary of State in respect of or in accordance with any such licence.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Orders of the Day — DEEP SEA MINING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to deep sea mining operations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the administrative expenses incurred in consequence of that Act by any Government department—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Orders of the Day — Turkeys (French Exports)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Sir Paul Bryan: I have taken it upon myself to speak for the British turkey industry because I have in my constituency the highly successful firm of Twydale Turkeys Limited, which I have watched growing over the past 30 years from a modest one-man concern into one of the largest, most go-ahead and sophisticated units in the industry. The firm employs 600 people directly and many more indirectly. It benefits local farms and compounders which supply most of the cereal feeding stuffs for the 2½ million turkeys which are produced every year. The turkeys are reared and fattened on farms all over Yorkshire.
In anything like normal circumstances, the future for Twydale Turkeys Limited would look as promising as the past. The turkey, unsubsidised in any way, has competed successfully against all other meats, most of them subsidised. New developments in the direction of further processed turkey are already a proved success. I cite the thriving Twydale company because it seems typical of the firms in the industry in its enterprising management and the modernity of its plant.
The industry is not appealing for Government help for the reasons so common to other industries in this time of recession. It is not an old, outdated industry struggling for survival. It is not like steel, doomed to contraction owing to world surplus. It is not like the many that the recession has shown to be dependent for survival on an undervalued pound. It is not an industry embarrassed, as the pig industry has so often been, by a temporary cyclical depression which will put itself right in due course. Nor is it threatened by foreign competition based on cheap labour or other inherent advantages. Britain is a perfectly appropriate place in which to produce turkeys, and our plants are among the most modern and efficient in the world.
Over the past two years, however, the industry has faced competition which is unfair in every sense of the word and which is here to stay. Last year, that competition came from America and France. The Minister has done much to correct the American threat by the adjustment of sluice gate prices.
The French threat is more menacing in that it is the direct result of the deliberately planned and determined policy of France to use its vast agricultural potential to help to pay the bill for imported energy. In less than three years, France's farm food industry has swung from a trade deficit of £600 million in 1977 to a record surplus of about 17 billion francs in 1980.
According to Michelle Debatisse, Secretary of State for Agri-business, a new Cabinet-level post created to supervise the agricultural expansion, the export performance will continue to improve. As part of this programme, according to the French Minister of Agriculture, French poultry meat production could rise by 24 per cent. during 1981—this at a time when poultry meat production is falling in every other European country.
Agricultural expansion is so unnatural in a Europe plagued by surpluses that it cannot happen without

vigorous artificial stimulus. Against the background of these surpluses and the competition of efficient British farms, it can be achieved only by means of heavy subsidisation to set up new units and to make the product so cheap that it is bound to flood any market on which it is dumped.
During my years as a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency, I have often heard complaints from producers—usually pig producers—about unfair subsidisation by foreign Governments, but these have always been very hard to prove. In this case, we have no such difficulty. Never has there been more detailed evidence of unfair competition and subsidisation than has been gathered, at great trouble and expense, by the British Turkey Federation. This was submitted to the Minister by Mr. Matthews, the chairman of the federation, in a letter last November. Quite apart from the £400 million douceur handed out to French farmers last December by President Giscard d'Estaing in preparation for the presidential election, it seems that there is a staggering array of grants and subsidies which virtually guarantee profitability and in some cases absolve the producer of the necessity to find any capital at all.
Mr. Matthews tells us of an aspiring Breton turkey producer who qualified for three capital grants, a 10 per cent. agricultural grant, a 25 per cent. regional development grant and a 25 per cent. discount on the cost of the land needed for the new turkey plant. On top of that, a wide range of cheap credit is available at a good 5 per cent. below the market rate. That money has to be paid back only when a profit is made.
The producer having been subsidised into a substantial way of business without any capital at all, the French Government will pay the entire wage bill for the staff for an unspecified training period. Nor are the beneficiaries of all this largesse small operators. One Breton producer, Mr. Bourgoine, is just completing a £6 million plant with a capacity equal to that of the whole British turkey industry. In addition to the grants that I have just mentioned, this gentleman benefits by a scheme under which the Government pay 90 per cent. of the average salary for six months of every worker whom Mr. Bourgoine rescues from the dole queue.
I think I have said enough to show that the British Turkey Federation is absolutely justified in raising the alarm. The first effects of the French subsidised turkey expansion have been a record build-up of frozen turkey stocks, and hence a drop in prices so severe that the industry cannot stand it for long. The future effects are so predictable and so severe that as a nation we should be very stupid if we allowed matters to take their course while watching our turkey industry disintegrate.
The turkey producers are puzzled to know why no action has yet been taken, since it is now almost six months since evidence of this unfair competition was conveyed to the Minister. Can my hon. Friend the Minister of State confirm that these subsidies, obviously objectionable, are also illegal?
Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome states that
any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
That seems to me an exact picture of what I have been describing. What is the Commission doing to enforce its


own rules? It seems extraordinary that on the one hand the Commission is using its funds to deal with services while on the other hand, from another fund, it is boosting production and creating further surpluses.
Most farmers believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has stood up for British farming in Brussels extremely robustly. Turkey producers are anxious to learn what he has been able to do for them in their crisis. What is the latest news from Brussels? I understand that the Member of the European Parliament for Humberside, Mr. Battersby, and a group of Conservative Members have been pursuing the matter vigorously.
What can my right hon. Friend the Minister do off his own bat? The French Government appear to have no difficulty in making a grant of £400 million to their farmers. If there is to be a delay in dealing with French subsidies, would it be possible for the Minister to make a temporary grant to British producers until the matter is resolved?
I appreciate that an immediate ban on the imports of French turkeys would be illegal and, therefore, out of the question, but what of the illegality of most, if not all, of the French subsidies? These are the questions that I am being asked by my constituents and to which I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to reply.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). In addition to supporting the justice of his case, I have practical experience. Dales Turkeys is based in my constituency, near Ludlow. It is a highly efficient company that has expanded over the years. It employs about 1,000 people. It has been efficient and has lowered its production costs in real terms over the years. However, it is being hit by the competition that my hon. Friend outlined.
Hygiene standards are laid down within the EEC. They are supposed to be enforced throughout the EEC, but it would appear that British hygiene officers, through the British Veterinary Association, enforce them to the letter—as, no doubt, was the intention—whereas on the Continent they are observed more in the breach. The cost of hygiene enforcement is passed on to the firms involved. The local authority is responsible for standards and is entitled to reclaim the entire costs involved from firms. As a result, British firms incur higher costs than those on the Continent. That adds to unfair competition.
I took up the subject of the enforcement of hygiene standards with my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods. I received a reply from him to the effect that he was pursuing the matter in Brussels. I am sure he is doing so vigorously, and I support him. I do not wish to criticise him for doing so. However, the longer British industry is at a disadvantage compared with its Continental competitors—particularly the French—the longer we shall be squeezed out of the market. We cannot afford that much longer. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will cover this point.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am

grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) for having raised this subject. As he rightly said, it is a matter of immediate concern to his constituents. However, the subject is also of wide interest to the poultry industry, particularly the turkey industry as well as to agriculture in general.
My right hon. Friend the Minister and I share much of the concern that my hon. Friend expressed. Some of the facts and figures that he produced are very much in line with the results of our research into what is going on in the industry. The reasoned and sensible way in which my hon. Friend presented his case was impressive. My right hon. Friend and I treat his remarks extremely seriously. If things ended up in the way that one could envisage, the consequences would be serious for the turkey and poultry industries.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) for his brief intervention. Obviously, given his experience of his constituency he shares the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is also present. That shows the concern that exists both in that area and more widely. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Howden that the poultry industry, and particularly some of the firms that he mentioned, showed an extraordinary degree of enterprise, drive and efficiency in the 1970s in building up an industry that is in the forefront of Europe's poultry industry. At the same time it provides, at a good and a reasonable price, a product that is welcomed not only on our tables, but on those of other countries.
The industry's efficiency is not in question. The rate at which the industry grew during the 1970s is evidence of a considerable success story. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and I do not want to see that success story destroyed.
In the period of growth in the 1970s we saw a large increase in turkey production in the United Kingdom. By 1978 we had reached 106 per cent. self-sufficiency. However, particularly in recent years, we have had to face competition as industries in other parts of Europe have been developing. Italy is the major producer in Europe, at about 217,000 tonnes per annum, France follows with about 200,000 tonnes and last year we reached about 114,000 tonnes. Together we represent about 85 per cent. of Europe's total production, so we have a considerable interest in the market.
In the past year or so, the rate of growth has been levelling off. In 1981, we do not expect to see continuing growth. We are concerned on three counts. First, stocks in the United Kingdom are greater than a year ago, which would worry any industry. Secondly, prices quoted by Continental suppliers are below what we consider to be the reasonable cost of production in this country. Thirdly—and this is at the heart of the debate—French production has continued to expand. In 1979 the expansion was about 14 per cent., and the French Government are taking positive steps to continue it.
Within Europe there is free competition, with a common tariff but with certain concessions for third country supplies. Until now our industry has done extremely well, set a good example, and prospered. However, competition must be not only free but fair. The turkeymeat regime in Europe is unfair if trade is distorted and rules are not complied with. That is our fear, and it


stems not only from what my hon. Friend, the British Turkey Federation and the British Poultry Federation have said about what is happening in France.
It is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that the different Governments and industries comply with the rules. Last November we received representations from the president of the British Turkey Federation. We immediately sent the Commission details of the structural aids given to the French industry. We are extremely disappointed that, so far, we have not received a definitive reply, even though many of the arguments are clear—although national aids, and particularly the industrial aspects involved in processing, are perhaps less straightforward than for other agricultural products. At the same time, we have made inquiries through our embassy in Paris to determine precisely what is happening in France. We have also had further discussions with the industry.
In March we received further representation from the British Poultry Federation, and we and the Commission discussed them. We are disappointed with the response from the Commission. My right hon. Friend the Minister has raised the matter personally with Mr. Dalsager, the Commissioner responsible for agriculture. We shall continue to press the Commission and the Commissioner until the matter is properly resolved. We must ensure that EEC aids do not distort competition. Aids on the scale introduced by the French Government distort competition and the Commission should be ready to take action.
I have dealt with the State aids brought to our attention by the British Turkey Federation last November, which are of a structural nature. But that leaves a second area to which my hon. Friend referred. The package announced in December 1980 for French agriculture amounts to almost £380 million of direct income aid. There is a poultry element within that. Immediately we knew of the package we raised the matter with the Commission, which immediately asked the French Government to provide details. The French Government did not reply until February of this year and the Commission replied to them

in March telling them that the package was incompatible with Community rules. We now await further action from the Commission.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is not satisfied that any final action has yet been taken. We have seen only procedural steps by the Commission. We shall continue our pressure because we do not want our efficient turkey industry to suffer, which could happen if the French industry expanded through national aids. Although I express disappointment that we have not seen action by the Commission, the House and the poultry industry, especially the turkey industry, will realise that my right hon. Friend has already shown that he is prepared to act and not simply to put verbal pressure and persuasion on the Commission.
My hon. Friend is right in his remarks about the hygiene rules for the processing of turkeymeat—both the applications of the rules and their relationship to costs are unsatisfactory. Because of strong pressure from Britain, the Commission has brought forward proposals for better enforcement of the rules and for dealing with the cost aspect. That is important. The Commission has referred its proposals to the Council, and they are presently being discussed by a working group. We are also consulting the industry. In the meantime, because the position is unsatisfactory, my right hon. Friend has made available £2 million to assist our industry until there is a property harmonised scheme. That demonstrates that when my right hon. Friend is able to take action he will do so.
The same is true of third country imports and sluicegate prices, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Howden referred at the beginning of the debate. It applies equally to imports from the United States. We have seen a considerable increase in imports, and the tariff is applied to different qualities of product. Pressure has been mounted and action has been taken. That policy will continue. I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend's arguments have been advanced.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.